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@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. It doesnt. Parts of it are under a GPL V2 license without the optional clauses. Thats it. Rahul
