On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Linder, Doug <doug.lin...@merchantlink.com>wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > The reason for not being able to use ZFS under Linux is not the license > > used by ZFS but the missing will for integration. > > > > Several lawyers explained already why adding ZFS to the Linux would > > just create a "collective work" that is permitted by the GPL. > > Folks, I very much did not intend to start, nor do I want to participate in > or perpetuate, any religious flame wars. This list is for ZFS discussion. > There are plenty of other places for License Wars and IP discussion. > > The only thing I'll add is that I, as I said, I really don't care at all > about licenses. When it comes to licenses, to me (and, I suspect, the vast > majority of other OSS users), "GPL" is "synonymous with "open source". Is > that correct? No. Am I aware that plenty of other licenses exist? Yes. > Is the issue important? Sure. Do I have time or interest to worry about > niggly little details? No. All I want is to be able to use the best > technology in the ways that are most useful to me without artificial > restrictions. Anything that advances that, I'm for. > > This is one of those geek things where the topic you're personally very > geeky about seems *hugely* important and you can't understand why others > don't see that. Maybe it bugs you when people use "GPL" to mean "open > source", but the fact is that lots and lots of people do. It bugs me when > Stallman tries to get everyone to use the ridiculous "GNU/Linux", as if > anyone would ever say that. It bugs me when people say "I *could* care > less." But I live with these things. People talk the way they talk. If > you're into IP issues and OSS licensing, that's great. But don't be > surprised if other people aren't as fascinated with the dirty details of IP > law as you are. Most people find the law unutterably boring. > > So, feel free to discuss this as much as you want, but leave me out of it. > I regret and apologize for my callous disregard in casually tossing around > a clearly incendiary term like "GPL". > > Everyone have a great day! :) > The problem is, what you're saying amounts to: I want Oracle to port ZFS to linux because I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to pay Oracle for it, and I want to be able to use it any way I see fit. What is in it for Oracle? "Goodwill" doesn't pay the bills. Claiming you'd start paying for Solaris if they gave you ZFS for free in Linux is absolutely ridiculous. If the best response you can come up with is "goodwill", I suggest wishing in one hand and shitting in the other because there's no way Oracle is going to give away such a valuable piece of code for no monetary compensation. *AT BEST* I could see them releasing a binary for OEL only that they won't be sharing with anyone else. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
