On Mon, August 16, 2010 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "David Dyer-Bennet" <d...@dd-b.net> wrote: > >> >> On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: >> >> > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to >> release >> > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't >> > retrospectively change the license on already released code but they >> > can put a different (non-OSS) license on any new code. >> >> That's true. >> >> However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they >> must >> release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL. > > This claim would only be true in case that Oracle does not own the > copyright > on its' code...
Oops, yeah, you're right there; the copyright holder can grant additional licenses and do things itself. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
