Hello Wade, Monday, October 6, 2008, 8:56:12 PM, you wrote:
WSfc> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/06/2008 01:57:10 PM: >> Hi all >> >> In another thread a short while ago.. A cool little movie with some >> gumballs was all we got to learn about green-bytes. The product >> launched and maybe some of the people that follow this list have had a >> chance to take a look at the code/product more closely? Wstuart asked >> how they were going to handle section 3.1 of the CDDL, but nobody from >> green-bytes even made an effort to clarify this. I called since I'm >> consulting with companies who are potential customers, but are any of >> developers even subscribed to this list? >> >> After a call and exchanging a couple emails I'm left with the impression >> the source will *not* be released publicly or to customers. I'm not the >> copyright holder, a legal expert, or even a customer, but can someone >> from Sun or green-bytes make a comment. I apologize for being a bit off >> topic, but is this really acceptable to the community/Sun in general? >> Maybe the companies using Solaris and NetApp don't care about source >> code, but then the whole point of opening Solaris is just reduced to >> marketing hype. >> WSfc> Yes, this would be interesting. CDDL requires them to release code for WSfc> any executable version they ship. Considering they claim to have "...start WSfc> with ZFS and makes it better" it sounds like they have modified CDDL WSfc> covered code. Since Sun owns that code they would need to rattle the WSfc> cage. Sun? Anyone have any talks with these guys yet? Isn't CDDL file based so they could implement all the new functionality in new files and only added some includes and couple of useless (if provided alone) changes. ? 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
