On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote:
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).
Exactly! And nobody can force Sun to dual license if they do not want
to.
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The
BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL
licensors (myself included).
It seems Sun is internally divided on the GPL. Your CEO and Java
division seem quite happy with it.
But enterprises that use Linux and Linux community in general still
need proper storage system, right? And they might still have perfectly
valid reasons not to switch to Solaris. If ZFS can't be ported and
writing binary compatible storage system is impossible or impractical
then ZFS alternative must and will be designed and implemented
sooner or
later.
ZFS has value in and of itself as a differentiator in Solaris, which
will drive adoption and satisfaction. Solaris may be the only
credible competitor Linux has left, which will keep it honest. :)
--T
Sincerely yours, Max V. Yudin
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
