Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:34:33 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS License and Future Message-ID: <20101105213433.GC8648@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <4CD45A11.7060002@stillbilde.net> References: <AANLkTi=EKpVrX2xc7oq%2Bp=RCVtUMUmcVYefj7G20yr-O@mail.gmail.com> <4CD45A11.7060002@stillbilde.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 08:25:05PM +0100, Svein Skogen (Listmail account) w= rote: >=20 > Well ... CDDL was (iirc) based on the Mozilla Public License. Are you > similarly worried about Thunderbird or Firefox? I think Alejandro's more worried about what will happen with future versions of ZFS based on the company that now owns the copyrights, which is not (in any meaningful way I've been able to determine) at all similar to the Mozilla Foundation. Yes, the current stable version is CDDL. Will the next be purely proprietary, or some new license, or simply discontinued? Will Oracle start using patent suits to try to stop people who aren't paying for ZFS or who are using it on platforms other than Solaris from using it? Whether you think concerns like these will prove reasonable in the long run, they make a lot more sense than assuming that Alejandro just wonders if the CDDL is "dangerous" somehow. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkzUeGkACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKUTjgCgujU7wizJNO4AaCuzEIgLnl6o OJwAoNIHt/c1ROxu6iEIhhP0UwHxkiTj =xV+T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101105213433.GC8648>