ZFS was included in FreeBSD 7.0 because the BSD license is more free than the GPL with that regard. > ZFS has patents and nobody wants to take the risk > > http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066 > > ZFS (if and when someone ports it to Linux) might still be > able to live > a life like AFS does as a third party kernel module which > would not get > merged in the upstream kernel. Meanwhile, I would be > betting on btrfs ( > http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page) to get > mature and > merged in as a alternative with similar features. > -- There are many pages where Linus is taken into account http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061215-8428.html Also here is another page with related issues http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6061491.html Linus said that all of these things are in a "gray area" <quote> THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux behaviour. </quote> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html On a somewhat related note to kernel.org, will aufs be incorporated into the kernel? http://lwn.net/Articles/283279/ and squashfs + lzma compression also http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Squashfs_Aiming_For_Mainline_Kernel These things would help tremendously in the creation of livecd's and have other uses as well. Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
