Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 30th Apr 2008 12:55 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Thread beginning with comment 312156
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thus ZFS couldn't be included in Linux kernel and Btrfs(also GPL) won't be easily included in other operating systems.
That's life. Seriously. Choices have consequences, and some of them are beneficial and some of them are not. It is unlikely that ZFS will see inclusion in the Linux kernel, and it is unlikely that btrfs will see inclusion in the *Solaris kernel. (Should that be plural or not?) Sometimes those kinds of barriers are significant, and sometimes they are not. I am not convinced that the sharing of filesystem code has much benefit over cross-pollenation of *ideas* in this particular case, for reasons which I have outlined elsewhere in this thread.
I find that discussions on licensing often end up doing nothing more than generating bad blood and resentment between the various parties, without yielding any meaningful benefits.






Member since:
2007-06-09
But the problem is that GPL is too restrictive. Thus ZFS couldn't be included in Linux kernel and Btrfs(also GPL) won't be easily included in other operating systems. If I understand correctly...