Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Chuck Munro <chuckm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is
> >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the
> >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc?
> >
> > There is no licensing issue, but there are OpenSource enemies that spread a
> > fairy tale about an alleged licensing issue.
> >
> > The only problem with integrating ZFS into Linux is that the VFS interface from
> > Linux is inferior to the one from OpenSolaris and as a result, there is a need
> > to first implement missing interfaces.
> >
> > Jörg
> >
>
> Guys ... let's try not to have a license fight again on the list.
> Sometimes these things get way out of hand.
>
> This list is not a place for legal advise .. let's let the attorneys who
> actually know the law and the maintainers of programs decide what
> license they use and what it means.
Could you explain why you did not reply to the mail fropm Chris Adams who
introduced a false claim about so called "opinions of a number of lawyers"?
As mentioned: lawyers explain why there is no problem with ZFS integration. If
you don't like useless discussions, you need to prevent people from spreading
unverified rumors.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@xxxxxxxxxx (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
