On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
Hey, then just don't *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything else) to GPL. I don't think a lot of Solaris users ask on the Linux kernel mailing list to relicense Linux kernel components to CDDL so that they can use the features on Solaris. Rayson
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
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
