On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 14:23 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > 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? Maybe. Whatever GPL says and whatever is decided by the courts if anyone decides to challenge it. > 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. Rahul
