Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > The reason why GPLd code may happily call non-GPLd code is because otherwise
> > GPLd code would be illegal on AIX, HP-UX or Cygwin (or other closed source
> > platforms). This is what the FSF likes to
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> The reason why GPLd code may happily call non-GPLd code is because otherwise
> GPLd code would be illegal on AIX, HP-UX or Cygwin (or other closed source
> platforms). This is what the FSF likes to avoid. Given the fact that the GPLv2
It seems that i
"Brian H. Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keith Bierman wrote:
> >
> > Not being a lawyer, and this not being a Legal forum ... can we leave
> > license analysis alone?
> >
> >
>
> The GNU _itself_ states that it is not allowable in plain English. Why
> people continue to argue about it
Keith Bierman wrote:
Not being a lawyer, and this not being a Legal forum ... can we leave
license analysis alone?
The GNU _itself_ states that it is not allowable in plain English. Why
people continue to argue about it is beyond me :-)
Common Development and Distribution License (CD
On May 20, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ,,,
> It may be that you confuse the term "work" in trying to extend it
> in a wrong way.
...many wise words elided...
Not being a lawyer, and this not being a Legal forum ... can we leave
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > The GPL does not forbid GPLd code to use non-GPLd code from a GPLd project.
> > If this was not true, then the GPL would be completely unusable. It is bad
> > to
> > see that RMS in his talks always tel
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The GPL does not forbid GPLd code to use non-GPLd code from a GPLd project.
> If this was not true, then the GPL would be completely unusable. It is bad to
> see that RMS in his talks always tells you what he _likes_ to do but never
> what
> the GPL r
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Tom Buskey wrote:
> Regardless, ZFS is compelling enought that I'd like it everywhere.
Agreed--but not at the expense of changing its (ZFS') license.
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.linke
> > On May 18, 2008, at 14:01, Mario Goebbels wrote:
> > ZFS on Linux on
> > humper would actually be very interesting to many
> of
> > them. I think
> > that's good for Sun. Of course, ZFS on Linux on
>
> Umm, how many Linux shops buy support and/or HW from
> Sun ?
>
> It it's a Linux sho
"Colin Raven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general, licensing issues just make my brain bleed, but one hopes
> that the licensing gurus can get their heads together and find a way
> to get this done. I don't personally believe that Open Solaris *OR*
I see no license issue here. The problem is
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Bill McGonigle
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On May 18, 2008, at 14:01, Mario Goebbels wrote:
> >
> >> I mean, if the Linux folks to want it, fine. But
> if Sun's actually
> >> helping with such a possible effort, then it's
> just shooting itself in
> >> the f
Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 19, 2008, at 17:31, David Magda wrote:
> > you can use, modify, and redistribute code released under CDDL
> > without worrying about any patents
>
> On May 19, 2008, at 18:12, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > If it was correct, then neither FreeBSD no
> On May 18, 2008, at 14:01, Mario Goebbels wrote:
> ZFS on Linux on
> humper would actually be very interesting to many of
> them. I think
> that's good for Sun. Of course, ZFS on Linux on
Umm, how many Linux shops buy support and/or HW from Sun ?
It it's a Linux shop money is (in order)
On May 20, 2008, at 03:09, Erik Trimble wrote:
> That is, the ZFS on-disk format isn't IP protected, and the general
> concepts of how ZFS works (pools, CoW, snapshots, etc) are open,
> it's just _how_ the guts do these things which are.
I'm also in the decidedly-not-a-lawyer camp too, but w
Frankly, while I love Linux for a bunch of things (it runs my desktop,
amongst other things), I really think the impetus of "Geeze, can't we
get Linux to have THAT" every time some interesting thing comes along is
a BAD IDEA.
Having a large ecosystem of OSes which can cross-germinate ideas, but
On May 19, 2008, at 17:31, David Magda wrote:
> you can use, modify, and redistribute code released under CDDL
> without worrying about any patents
On May 19, 2008, at 18:12, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> If it was correct, then neither FreeBSD nor Mac OS X could use ZFS.
Somebody correct me if I'm
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While Linus may be the de-facto Linux spokesperson, he does not hold
> the many thousands of copyrights to Linux so he does not "own" the
> work. It is a hopeless case. The FSF was a bit wiser since they made
> sure that everyone who contributed to
Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 18, 2008, at 14:01, Mario Goebbels wrote:
>
> > I mean, if the Linux folks to want it, fine. But if Sun's actually
> > helping with such a possible effort, then it's just shooting itself in
> > the foot here, in my opinion.
>
>
> As it is, patents
On May 19, 2008, at 16:06, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> As it is, patents and licenses prevent Linux from picking up ZFS, but
> if they were to re-license ZFS under GPL3 or grant a linux project a
> patent license, it could be possible.
What does the CDDL say about patents?
The CDDL provides an explic
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> As it is, patents and licenses prevent Linux from picking up ZFS, but
> if they were to re-license ZFS under GPL3 or grant a linux project a
> patent license, it could be possible.
I don't believe that either of these is sufficient. The Linux kernel
i
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 18, 2008, at 14:01, Mario Goebbels wrote:
>
>> I mean, if the Linux folks to want it, fine. But if Sun's actually
>> helping with such a possible effort, then it's just shooting itself in
>> the foot here, in my op
On May 18, 2008, at 14:01, Mario Goebbels wrote:
> I mean, if the Linux folks to want it, fine. But if Sun's actually
> helping with such a possible effort, then it's just shooting itself in
> the foot here, in my opinion.
As it is, patents and licenses prevent Linux from picking up ZFS, but
i
Here's a link to a recent blog entry of Jeff Bonwick, lead engineer of
ZFS, showing him with Linus Torvalds, making mysterious comments in a
blog post that's tagged ZFS.
I hate to be a scaremongerer, but are we about to lose one major
advantage over the "competition"?
I mean, if the Linux folks t
23 matches
Mail list logo
