1 |
On 28/08/2013 12:58, Tanstaafl wrote: |
2 |
> On 2013-08-27 5:06 PM, Joerg Schilling |
3 |
> <Joerg.Schilling@××××××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
4 |
>> You wrote that modules become derivatives of the Linux kernel and this |
5 |
>> is the |
6 |
>> same as writing ZFS would become a kernel derivative. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Just for clarification, I was talking about compiling ZFS support INTO |
9 |
> the kernel, not running it as a module. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Do you claim that support for compiling ZFS directly into the kernel |
12 |
> also does not violate the license? |
13 |
> |
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
Whether the code is compile in or a module makes no difference wrt |
17 |
licenses as far as I know. |
18 |
|
19 |
There's no limitation on *running* the code, you can fetch and patch and |
20 |
edit and compile and run all you want and have it on as many of your (or |
21 |
the company's) machines as you want - neither license interferes with |
22 |
your right to do that. |
23 |
|
24 |
You may not redistribute the code though. |
25 |
|
26 |
A common misconception with these license is that they have something to |
27 |
do with whether you may run the code or not. That is incorrect. Free |
28 |
licenses are all about redistribution and your obligations about sharing |
29 |
when you hand the code over to others. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Alan McKinnon |
35 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |