Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote: > > ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to > > the BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"? > > You appear to not fully understand the licenses.
Well, I of course fully understand the licenses. It may however be that you are missinformed because you have been listening to the wrong people. > Remember that the Linux kernel is GPL-2 and it's modules are considered > derivative works. The GPL-2 license demands that all derivative works be > either GPL-2 licensed or 100% compatible with the GPL-2. This is a claim that in conflict with the US copyright law. Check out: http://www.osscc.net/en/gpl.html There are verious statements from various lawyers that explain this and even give evidence for their claims. The GPL tries to redefine the definition for the term "derivative work" but this is forbidden by US Copyright law title 17 section 106. See my other posting for more information. > ZFS is licensed CCDL which although free and liberal, is not GPL-2 > compatible. > It is BSD-compatible which is why the BSDs can (and some do) ship it. > > The ZFS license is thus not a mere hurdle, it is an un-overcomeable barrier > in The only hurdle is in the brain of some Linux developers. I know of not a single lawyer that could claim such incompatibility and gives evidence for his statements. Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (uni) [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
