On 06/01/2015 07:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > 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 > I replied to the last one I saw in the thread at the time of my reply .. not to assign blame.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
