Hello Ignatich, Thursday, April 12, 2007, 1:25:57 AM, you wrote:
I> Rich Teer writes: >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: >> >>> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux >>> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? >> >> I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the >> Linux kernel's license would require the consent of every copyright >> holder, many of whom may not be able to be tracked down or give >> their consent. So in practical terms, the license for Linux CAN'T >> be changed: they're stuck with it (it being GPLv2). >> I> Exactly! And nobody can force Sun to dual license if they do not want I> to. But enterprises that use Linux and Linux community in general still I> need proper storage system, right? And they might still have perfectly I> valid reasons not to switch to Solaris. If ZFS can't be ported and I> writing binary compatible storage system is impossible or impractical I> then ZFS alternative must and will be designed and implemented sooner or I> later. And there's nothing wrong with it - competition is good, even in open source. I'm not sure if and how much resource would dual-licensing of Open Solaris involve, but still I think there're more important things than assuring Linux gets Solaris technologies when it comes to kernel. Now it makes a lot of sense if higher-level technologies like Gnome, KDE, OO, etc. are easily running on different platforms and more or less we're there right now. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
