| 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 |
Archives