On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 21:03 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: > > > On 22Jun2006 09:21, Steven Ringwald <asric@xxxxxxxxx> 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. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
