Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:45:16 +0100 From: Patrick Proniewski <patpro@patpro.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS licensing question Message-ID: <573B5C38-C31D-47CB-8158-41B4B7DFEB6C@patpro.net> In-Reply-To: <4AE871B7.4000807@FreeBSD.org> References: <1D0AE4B4-278A-4325-BFED-07B04BE316E1@patpro.net> <4AE871B7.4000807@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail-9--728157514 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 28 oct. 2009, at 17:30, Kris Kennaway wrote: > Patrick Proniewski wrote: >> Hello, >> Well, I understand this list is mainly interested in implementation >> and tuning, but I'm sure some of you are well informed about >> licensing issues. >> Recently, Apple giving up on ZFS has made the headlines. *It >> appears* to be related to the NetApp vs. Sun case (<http://www.netapp.com/us/company/news/press-releases/news_rel_20070905.html >> >). And *it appears* Sun tried to impose a license that would make >> Apple responsible for IP infringement in case Sun would lose >> against NetApp. >> It makes me wonder about the FreeBSD port of ZFS. Do you have >> further informations about the licensing of ZFS technology, and >> about the case of FreeBSD port ? > > I don't think anyone from FreeBSD has additional details to > contribute about Apple's decision, and as far as we're aware nothing > has changed with respect to ZFS licensing. Well, I think some people are working for Apple and FreeBSD ;) May be I should have made my point clearer. My concern is: do you think this kind of problem can impact FreeBSD too. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with licenses subtleties and I'm not a lawyer... regards, patpro --Apple-Mail-9--728157514--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?573B5C38-C31D-47CB-8158-41B4B7DFEB6C>