|
|
|
|
|
|
by arp242
992 days ago
|
|
|
Lots of lawyers have said it's probably incompatible. Is it? Who knows. You're saying it's all nonsense, which seems quite a far-fetched claim. I find it hard to see how anyone could defend any other answer than "it's presently unclear", possibly followed by "but it's probably (in)?compatible". That distros haven't been sued yet seems meaningless. Granted, Oracle has been a bit better in recent years, but people haven't forgotten Oracle v. Google, SCO v. {everyone}, USL v. BSDi, etc. One of the lessons is that you can never know who will own some piece of copyright or IP in the future and what they will do with it. Oracle could off-load all of the Solaris stuff to some copyright troll tomorrow. But it doesn't really matter who is right or wrong here or if it is or isn't compatible: there's enough of a dispute for lawsuits, and they're going to be costly and a headache anyway. |
|
|
I don't think if meaningless. And its not just distros, there are whole companies whos buissness model depends on linux with zfs. And its also all the companies who use the distros.
Literally 100s and 100s of company are running Ubuntu. All of those companies have decided that ZFS isn't a problem of them. All of them could have ask to exclude ZFS but non have to my knowlage.
Its also not really about Oracle. Sun did the legwork when they open-sourced their stuff. Those licenses in itself are not in question. And those licenses certainty don't care about being linked with GPL. The only question is if GPL is incomparable with the CDDL.
So the fear of Oracle in this case that Oracle would put itself forward as defender of the GPL? That makes no sense. But anybody could sue anybody about that at any time.
If Linux had included ZFS the ZFS code would already exists on most of the worlds computers by now. And the waste, waste majority of companies would not remove ZFS over some open source inside baseball.