From: "Toby Thain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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).
GPL for Linux is a double edged sword.
Linux has this interface called "netfilter" which I provided input
on many years ago. A primary goal of that was to enable other open
source projects (such as IPFilter) to work with Linux.
If, however, the mere act of compiling IPFilter for Linux forces it
to be GPL then it's not something I ever want to happen and in turn
I would withdraw IPFilter's Linux support and the point of having
the API would be somewhat diminished. The problem here is around
what the term "derived work" means and what exactly is one. While
we all have opinions, to my knowledge it is untested in court.
If interoperability with Linux means you have no choice in your
licence then the only option seems to be excluding Linux.
Darren
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
