> On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag > Agarwal<anu...@kqinfotech.com> wrote: > > > >> We at KQInfotech, initially started on an > independent port of ZFS to linux. > >> When we posted our progress about port last year, > then we came to know about > >> the work on LLNL port. Since then we started > working on to re-base our > >> changing on top Brian's changes. > >> > >> We are working on porting ZPL on that code. Our > current status is that > >> mount/unmount is working. Most of the directory > operations and read/write is > >> also working. There is still lot more development > work and testing that > >> needs to be going in this. But we are committed to > make this happen so > >> please stay tuned. > >> > > > > Good times ahead! > > > I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that > someone lawyerly has had the appropriate discussions > with the porting team about how linking against the > GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be > GPL-compatible. It doesn't matter if you distribute > it outside the general kernel source tarball, what > matters is that you're linking against a GPL program, > and the old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a > non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do that.
This is incorrect. The viral effects of the GPL only take effect at the point of distribution. If ZFS is distributed seperately to the Linux kernel as a module then the person doing the combining is the user. Different if a Linux distro wanted to include it on a live CD, for example. GPL is not concerned with what code is linked with what. Cheers Andrew. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
