| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:47:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczek@...y.mif.pg.gda.pl> To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> cc: "David R. Litwin" <presently42@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: [..] > Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers. What > he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are > the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL > license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any > patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS. This is > not anything Linux developers can help you with. Realy can't or don't want (?) So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking some law ? And/or what Linux can loose on follow this king changes ? And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try to think like "anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux" (?) Why this can't be fixes ? If in this ponit in Linux "evniroment" can't be chaged .. sorry but is it not kind of hipocritics ? kloczek -- ----------------------------------------------------------- *Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają* ----------------------------------------------------------- Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: kloczek@...y.mif.pg.gda.pl*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists