> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote: and any lawyer worth the air he or she breathes to sufficiently dispute this in court, I think.
On 8/10/07, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > they have a specific side they err on, and this is one of > those issues that seems to be accepted by them. Unless the putting the code into gpl tree is something we *badly want*, if there is ambiguity and scope for legal battle, err on the side that avoids litigation. No point in getting into litigations that distracts & frustrates everyone. While contributing CDDL code to GPL code might not be a problem, that part of the contributed CDDL code would need to be re-licensed or dual-licensed under GPL compatible code. On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Do not listen to the people who like to tell you that there are problems > because you cannot put the lock into the key.....understand that the GPL > is a heavily assymetric license. If Eben Moglen has clarified *this specific issue*, it should be ok. But lock and key analogy to drive home this point is incorrect. There is a codebase X(ZFS) under CDDL and codebase Y(linux kernel), under GPL. * A 3rd party takes ZFS & Linux-kernel and creates a combined product, now do you call it ZFS incorporating Linux-kernel or the other way. * The codebase of linux-kernel is huge compared to ZFS is incidental, if ZFS code were to be 200k instead of the 80k would you still use the container analogy. What if it were 1000k instead of 80k => See, it is subject to interpretation and litigations in such situations lawyers are the only ones who stand to gain. ~Shiv _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
