On Mon, Aug 16 at 8:52, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ray Van Dolson <rvandol...@esri.com> wrote:
> > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
> > dual-licensed BTRFS.
>
> Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
> kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it...
>
> As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.
No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they
own the code.
Maybe there's not legally, but practically there is. If they're not
GPL compliant, why would Linus or his lieutenants continue to allow the
code to remain part of the Linux kernel?
The snapshot of btrfs development would obviously remain GPL, that
can't be "taken away" from the kernel and anyone is free to continue
GPL development of that work.
However, Oracle can freely close up all future development and change
future licensing. It obviously won't affect the previous
kernel-included snapshot, but depending on critical mass, may or may
not result in the bitrot of btrfs in linux.
And what purpose would btrfs serve Oracle outside of the Linux kernel?
Maybe allowing SANs built upon btrfs to be natively used within
Solaris/Oracle at some point in the future? Adding btrfs->zfs
conversion utilities that do things like maintain snapshots, data set
properties, etc?
--
Eric D. Mudama
edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
