[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.63.0704171736220.11088@rudy.mif.pg.gda.pl>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:41:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczek@...y.mif.pg.gda.pl>
To: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@...-k-j.com>
cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
"David R. Litwin" <presently42@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
>> 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 ?
>
> That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of
> mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back
> to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient.
CDDL is OSI aproved. Did you realy want to say by above something like
"CDDL is pseudo-proprietary licence" ? Are you still taking about (and
only) CDDL ?
> I'm sure Linus did think very closely about the interaction of his code
> with proprietary licences. He thought about it, snickered for a few
> moments, and made the right decision.
I don't want see problmes on border with propretary licenses at all but I
see (and still want to talk only about) problem on on some class licenses
which provides more oppened (and not closed) code.
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