Ten Reasons To *NOT* Use ZFS:
Rahul Sundaram
sundaram at fedoraproject.org
Fri Jun 23 19:14:40 UTC 2006
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 13:50 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 21:03 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > > > On 22Jun2006 09:21, Steven Ringwald <asric at asric.com> wrote:
> > > > | >Your points on licensing are the accurate and worth considering. This
> > > > | >could be the show stopper.
> > > > |
> > > > | Isn't this why modules were introduced into the kernel???
> > > >
> > > > No. Go look at the linux kernel folks opinions about binary-only modules.
> > >
> > > Why is that relevant?
> > > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/source/
> > >
> >
> > You know the answer to that.
> > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/
> >
> > ...
> > I believe this covers it.
> > http://groups.google.co.il/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/9726be571101d09/27036427257177ed?q=cddl&rnum=1#27036427257177ed
>
> Sun may have their reasons to make the problems of the GPL as
> obvious as they can. In particular it would be crazy for them
> to restrict linking with code released under other licenses.
>
> However, ZFS won't be the first thing that many users of GPL'd
> kernels have had to awkwardly add in as a module and it isn't likely
> to be the last. Don't forget that Linux has a 'modified' GPL itself.
It doesnt. Parts of it are under a GPL V2 license without the optional
clauses. Thats it.
Rahul
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list