Ten Reasons To *NOT* Use ZFS:

[Rahul Sundaram]

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:47 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 00:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > 
> > > Does that mean that all programs using a kernel interface must
> > > be GPL'd now?  
> > 
> > Maybe. Whatever GPL says and whatever is decided by the courts if anyone
> > decides to challenge it. 
> 
> Since things take years to go through the courts, I guess the place
> we'll first find out if something automatically falls under the
> copyright of the first kernel where it was used is when we find
> out what SCO actually owns.

SCO related cases are completely orthogonal to the question on what
falls under derivative work which is pretty complex and has to be
decided on a case by case basis. 

> 
> > > That would pretty much render it useless for
> > > running commercial applications and has been the specific modification
> > > I've seen in the COPYING file distributed with the kernel - but
> > > I haven't looked recently... 
> > > 
> > 
> > Which Linus himself has said is not an exception or modification of the
> > license.
> 
> He says that now.  In the early days he was widely quoted as saying
> the opposite but google wasn't around then so I can't just grab
> a copy to see the exact context.  I thought it was a big reason for
> the early popularity of Linux that pre-existing code could be
> used in driver modules.

As it is now, what is a verifiable claim clearly says that Linux is not
under any sort of modified GPL license.

Rahul