Ten Reasons To *NOT* Use ZFS:
Rahul Sundaram
sundaram at fedoraproject.org
Fri Jun 23 19:29:33 UTC 2006
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
More information about the users
mailing list