Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th May 2008 15:32 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris It seems like we're really on the subject of filesystems and related technology the past few days. We had an interview with the man behind BeServed, an item on WinFS' current status, and now we - possibly - have news on ZFS coming to Linux. Possibly, because it's all speculation from here on out.
Thread beginning with comment 314777
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: gpl3
by diegoviola on Mon 19th May 2008 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE: gpl3"
diegoviola
Member since:
2006-08-15

I doubt it's that easy.

The OpenSolaris governance board already decided that GPLv3 is a nogo for the time being. Linus is also opposing the GPLv3, not to mention all the contributor agreements he'd have to get on a license change.


Linus has been saying that he doesn't like GPLv3 as much as GPLv2, but he also said that if Sun makes ZFS to be GPLv3 he will *probably* adopt it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: gpl3
by aesiamun on Mon 19th May 2008 13:14 in reply to "RE[2]: gpl3"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

i hadn't heard this before. Is there a link somewhere that has this quote in it's full context?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: gpl3
by sbergman27 on Mon 19th May 2008 13:49 in reply to "RE[3]: gpl3"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

IIRC, it was more along the lines of ZFS being one of the few things interesting enough that if OpenSolaris went GPLv3 it might be worth *considering* going through the pain of trying to relicense the Linux kernel to GPLv2 or later.

I, personally, think that such an effort would result in FUD vulnerabilities which would come back to haunt us. The kernel has, according to Linus, perhaps as many as 4000 contributors at this point. Linus and all other relevant contributors (or their heirs) would have to be found and formally agree to the change. Code whose owner disagreed, could not be found, or where the holder of the copyright was unclear, would have to have their code rewritten... tricky when it is intertwined with so many other people's code. In short, It would be impossible to do right. What would happen would be a best effort attempt followed by a declaration that it was done. It would be an open invitation to FUD cast by anyone who could benefit from casting doubt on the Linux kernel. And what is worse, their claims would be perfectly valid. Imagine if SCO had actually had a real case?

The validity of Linux kernel licensing is the only thing in this world allowing anyone, anywhere, even the developers themselves, to use the Linux kernel.

Think about that.

Re-licensing, at this late date, would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, and we do not want to even think about going there.

Edit: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/12/232

Edited 2008-05-19 14:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2