On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 00:44 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > > > | > > > > > | 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. Does that mean that all programs using a kernel interface must be GPL'd now? 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... -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
