Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:25 UTC
Permalink for comment 515215
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-24
That's your choice and I applaud your generosity.
Linux can't include ZFS in the mainline kernel, even though both the kernel and ZFS are open source. It's a problem BSD projects don't have.
And the BSD projects can't use GPL licenced code while Linux don't have that problem and can use BSD licenced code, go figure.
The reason ZFS is incompatible with GPL was by design as Sun was facing severe competition from Linux and didn't want to allow it to use their key technology.
GPLv2 and GPLv3 aren't compatible, which was a huge mistake. It means if two projects were both GPLv2 and were sharing patches, and then one project updates to GPLv3 the code can only flow in one direction.
Eh? The GPLv2 licence says 'or later', so unless the 'GPLv2' project has removed the 'or later' clause then they are in no way incompatible. Only project I know of which has done so is Linux, however even here it's not the end of the road as you can dual-licence your code.
GRUB Legacy (GPLv2) can use signing keys for secure booting, but GRUBv2 (which is GPLv3) can't.
It's only incompatible with signing keys for secure booting if it doesn't allow the end user to sign keys, like with UEFI on Microsoft approved ARM machines. If the end user is allowed to sign keys to be valid then there's no problem with GPLv3.
Personally I see this as a great feature of GPLv3 as I don't want hardware which is artificially crippled to only boot code signed by a third party.