1 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> > ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to |
4 |
> > the BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> You appear to not fully understand the licenses. |
7 |
|
8 |
Well, I of course fully understand the licenses. It may however be that you |
9 |
are missinformed because you have been listening to the wrong people. |
10 |
|
11 |
> Remember that the Linux kernel is GPL-2 and it's modules are considered |
12 |
> derivative works. The GPL-2 license demands that all derivative works be |
13 |
> either GPL-2 licensed or 100% compatible with the GPL-2. |
14 |
|
15 |
This is a claim that in conflict with the US copyright law. |
16 |
|
17 |
Check out: |
18 |
|
19 |
http://www.osscc.net/en/gpl.html |
20 |
|
21 |
There are verious statements from various lawyers that explain this and even |
22 |
give evidence for their claims. |
23 |
|
24 |
The GPL tries to redefine the definition for the term "derivative work" but this |
25 |
is forbidden by US Copyright law title 17 section 106. See my other posting for |
26 |
more information. |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
> ZFS is licensed CCDL which although free and liberal, is not GPL-2 compatible. |
30 |
> It is BSD-compatible which is why the BSDs can (and some do) ship it. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> The ZFS license is thus not a mere hurdle, it is an un-overcomeable barrier in |
33 |
|
34 |
The only hurdle is in the brain of some Linux developers. |
35 |
|
36 |
I know of not a single lawyer that could claim such incompatibility and gives |
37 |
evidence for his statements. |
38 |
|
39 |
Jörg |
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
EMail:joerg@××××××××××××××××××××××××.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin |
43 |
js@××××××××××××.de (uni) |
44 |
joerg.schilling@××××××××××××××××.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ |
45 |
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily |