David Magda wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 08:53, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The article that was mentioned a few hours ago did mention
licensing problems without giving any kind of evidence for
this claim. If there is evidence, I would be interested in
knowing the background, otherwise it looks to me like FUD.
I'm guessing that you'll never see direct evidence given the
sensitivity that these negotiations can take. All you'll guess is
rumours and leaks of various levels of reliability.
Apple can currently just take the ZFS CDDL code and incorporate it
(like they did with DTrace), but it may be that they wanted a "private
license" from Sun (with appropriate technical support and
indemnification), and the two entities couldn't come to mutually
agreeable terms.
Indemnification, I think reakky could have been a sticking point. I
beleive that the NetApp <-> Sun Legal disputes are still working their
way through the legal process. If I were Apple I would have wanted some
protection in the case Sun loses the case. I don't think I'd want to be
target #2 with precedent already set.
That said, from what I've read, I don't beleive NetApp has a leg to
stand on.... But then again I'm not a lawyer. ;)
-Kyle
Oh well. I'm sure Apple can come up something good in the FS team, but
it's a shame that the wheel has to be re-invented when there's a
production-ready option available.
_______________________________________________
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
