Re: ZFS on linux

[Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am 16.01.2016 um 22:19 schrieb Neal Gompa:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Am 16.01.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Neal Gompa:
> > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
> > > > <luya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default?
> > > >
> > > > No, and as far as I know they don't contribute to ZFS on Linux. There
> > > > is a distinction between ZFS and OpenZFS that's kinda important. ZFS
> > > > on Linux is based on OpenZFS, not ZFS. There're incompatible features
> > > > since pool version 28 in each, so they're essentially diverging. I
> > > > don't know if that qualifies them as defacto forks (either from each
> > > > other, or from ZFS pool version 28). Anyway, Oracle only includes ZFS
> > > > in Solaris. And they continue to contribute to Btrfs.
> > >
> > > They do, however, include DTrace in their distribution, which remains
> > > CDDL licensed in their distribution
> >
> > stop that FUD - CDDL is not the problem - MIXING is the topic
> > and don't bring "cdrecrord" to the topic, the author is the problem
> >
> > back to topic:
> > even if DTrace would be closed source Oracle could include it because tehy
> > are the *copyright holder* and can release it under *every* license they
> > like to do
>
> DTrace is a kernel module that is CDDL licensed in Oracle Linux. So, not FUD

come on get a laywer and dicuss that topic somewhere else

first they laywer needs to find out *which* of both licenses maybe 
violated - if it's the CDDL then it's no problem for Oracle, if it's the 
GPL, well it needs a lawsuit in doubt

IT DOES NOT MATTER what Oracle does
IT DOES NOT MATTER what anybody else does
ABOVE DOES NOT MATTER for Fedora

licensing is a minefield and hence Fedora / Redhat legal stays on the 
SAVE SIDE - so WHAT needs to be discussed again and again

and since you still did not realize it:
even without the legal questions a out-of-tree module WON'T make it into 
Fedora and so the whole topic is done

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx