On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
> 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 never would. But it would be horrifying to imagine it relicensed to
BSD. (Hello, Microsoft, you just got yourself a competitive filesystem.)
Well, anyone can port ZFS to Windows if they like. For MS to do it MS
would have to abide by the patent peace provision of the CDDL.
The same applies to Linux, except that many people believe that the GPL
would make such a port a derivative (because it'd link with the GPLed
linux kernel) of GPLed code and that CDDL and GPL are incompatible,
meaning that you couldn't distribute Linux w/ ZFS. The "linking
derives" argument is controversial and not tested in court.
well since this thread has devolved :-) i'll just say i find that to be a
specious argument. like every CS problem, one can always solve the linking
problem with another level of abstraction. which (IMHO) renders the
"linking derives" argument invalid.
-frank
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
