| 1 |
On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-08-28 7:12 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Whether the code is compile in or a module makes no difference wrt |
| 4 |
>> licenses as far as I know. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> There's no limitation on*running* the code, you can fetch and patch and |
| 7 |
>> edit and compile and run all you want and have it on as many of your (or |
| 8 |
>> the company's) machines as you want - neither license interferes with |
| 9 |
>> your right to do that. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> You may not redistribute the code though. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> So, can you answer me this... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party |
| 16 |
> overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that contained |
| 17 |
> *only* the zfs stuff, and when this overlay was installed combined with |
| 18 |
> a zfs keyword for the kernel, portage would then pull in the required |
| 19 |
> files, and automagically build a kernel with an up to date version of |
| 20 |
> zfs properly and fully integrated? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Would this not work, *and* have no problems with licensing? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
there is no problem with licensing in that case. |
| 26 |
The ebuild could even go in the portage tree, as Gentoo is not |
| 27 |
redistributing sources when it publishes an ebuild. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 31 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives