Alan DuBoff writes: > The only thing I would have done different given the limited resources in > engineering, would have been to license under the BSD 3 clause so that > anyone, any system, could have taken the code to incorporate into their > system, even Linux.
I suspect that would have been much worse. ZFS (like many things in OpenSolaris) has patented technology behind it. Among other things, the CDDL provides users with grants for those patents, so that they can actually *use* the bits provided. The BSD 3-clause license does no such thing. Each user would be on his own to negotiate a license for the patents or a retreat to some haven where patents don't apply. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that means at least "non-free" treatment for it in Linux, and possible no inclusion at all. I realize that (as non-lawyers) we're all very fond of short-and-sweet licenses on software, even if they're riddled with legal holes, and treat IPR like Mizaru. The standard BSD license is that. GPLv2 is a bit too stridently wordy but less ambiguous. The MPL and CDDL are even harder to read by mere humans. That, though, is the nature of the litigious world we live in. As for whether Linux users can incorporate ZFS, that's really up to them to figure out. Not only are we not lawyers, but we're not *their* lawyers, so we can't tell them what's acceptable and what's not. I don't think you should blame Sun for issues that are squarely in their court. > It seems that will happen if Sun does GPL2 and/or GPL3 > the OpenSolaris sources, and I don't know if they will do that, just that > they have mentioned that in the press. Oh, please, let's not have that discussion again. It hasn't been nearly long enough for it to seem to have been fun in retrospect. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
