Am 14.01.2016 um 20:20 schrieb Neal Gompa:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Am 14.01.2016 um 19:57 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxx <mailto:notting@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from a CTO who's trying to sell me the thing they're talking about the licensing of. We certainly could send that interpretation of CDDL/GPL and the kernel to the legal team... but I'm not sure they'd agree with it. Well, if Lawrence Livermore is doing it, and Canonical apparently plans to do it, it probably would be a good idea to get a determination from the legal teamwho is "Lawrence Livermore"?Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is an organization founded by the University of California to do research and development for academic and government purposes. The US Department of Energy commissioned them to port ZFS to Linux quite a long time ago[0], which is the foundation of the current ZFS on Linux codebase.
and they build a large, genral purpose, linux distribution?
Please do some research before actually saying things
likely i did much more research than you can even imagine long before that thread started
CDDL is incompatible with GPLv2 - period
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
