From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031150AbXDQQWc (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:22:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031151AbXDQQWc (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:22:32 -0400 Received: from keil-draco.com ([216.193.185.50]:50378 "EHLO mail" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031150AbXDQQWb convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:22:31 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: Tomasz =?utf-8?q?K=C5=82oczko?= Subject: Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:22:19 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Theodore Tso , "David R. Litwin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20070417131045.GB18373@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704171222.19892.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 17 April 2007 09:47:32 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > [..] > > > Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers. What > > he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are > > the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL > > license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any > > patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS. This is > > not anything Linux developers can help you with. > > Realy can't or don't want (?) As it has been explained to you before it is "can't" > So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for > allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking > some law ? If I've parsed this query correctly the answer is: Linux is licensed under the GPL and because a number of people that have contributed code to it can no longer agree to a change in the license because they have died this cannot be changed. That was explained quite clearly in several mails as well. > And/or what Linux can loose on follow this king changes ? > And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was > licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under > license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try > to think like "anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux" (?) When Linux was licensed under the GPL there was only *ONE* real choice for licensing it. Linus released the code under the GPL and there it has remained, with Linus leading development. If Linux had *NOT* been released under the GPL it would not be as popular or as powerful as it is - and that is not an opinion but a statement of fact. > Why this can't be fixes ? See the previous statement and several previous mails in this thread. Linux is licensed under the GPL, it is the *only* license agreed to by everyone that has contributed code. If I remember the statistics, there have been something like 10,000 different people that have contributed code. Since each contributor holds the copyright on their code they are the *ONLY* people that could change the license on it. Anyone attempting to change the license without agreement from *everyone* that has contributed code to the kernel they are in violation of US and international copyright laws. > If in this ponit in Linux "evniroment" can't be chaged .. sorry but is it > not kind of hipocritics ? Nope. You've just ignored it when it was explained *why* the existing ZFS code cannot be simply be ported to Linux. If you really need ZFS on linux, might I suggest that you port the code on your own and maintain whatever patches are needed to use it? As it stands ZFS *might* show up in Linux as a from-scratch implementation, although I stress the "might" because there are patents involved. DRH (Now please, drop the subject - IMNSHO it is never going to happen)