On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
LLNL is still actively involved in the ZFS on Linux project, so they
are still doing something with it.
Correct, and that can be discovered with a Google search - which found this:
On the Canonical side there was this article with some comments on the licensing issue:
Here is another link from the people who should know:
If the FSF believed the above statement from zfsonlinux was not correct, one would think they would
quickly and clearly rebuke it; especially considering Canonical's plans.
I haven't found any such statement, perhaps someone else has the link.
Again, there can be a multitude of valid reasons that Fedora does not include ZFS.
Personally, I think BTRFS is a much better choice than ZFS. I just don't believe people should
hang their hat on GPL infringement.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
