On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 01:04:59PM -0700, Eric D. Mudama wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20 at 14:19, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Tim wrote: > >> > >> Oracle: It should be an interesting ride to say the least. I guess we'll > >> see just how much they love linux... either zfs et. all will become GPL, or > >> we'll see their true colors. I'm secretly hoping for the latter (as long > >> as > >> they keep it open sourced). > > > > I don't think that GPL would be very wise, although a dual-license may be > > ok. Linux would need GPLv2, which is now out of date. > > > > GPL v2 may not be the most recent version, but a lot of people prefer > GPLv2 to GPLv3, in the same way that some people might prefer Solaris > 8 to Solaris 10, or Linux 2.4 kernels to the 2.6 series. > > I don't know who they are, but they certainly exist.
I wouldn't say GPLv2 is out of date. In fact, I don't think it'll ever go away as a lot of people see it as being more "free" than GPLv3. So, yes, GPLv3 has a higher version number, but it hardly obsoletes GPLv2 :-) (I think I'm basically agreeing with what you said here) Ray _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
