When will we can use ZFS v24?
yanefbsd at gmail.com
Mon Apr 12 11:21:43 UTC 2010
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Tom Evans <tevans.uk at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Dan Nelson <dnelson at allantgroup.com> wrote:
>> In the last episode (Apr 08), Garrett Cooper said:
>>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chuck Swiger <cswiger at mac.com> wrote:
>>> > On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:18 PM, krad wrote:
>>> > [ ... ]
>>> >>> is that even possible with CDDL?
>>> >> im not a lawyer but it wouldn't surprise me
>>> > I'm not a lawyer either, but I was active in reviewing and suggesting
>>> > changes to CDDL submission for OSI approval back in 2004.
>>> > A copyright owner always has the ability to relicense their code under
>>> > other terms, but existing code is guaranteed to be available,
>>> > redistributable to others, etc under the terms of the current version of
>>> > CDDL; in particular see:
>>> > If Oracle chooses, they might make future changes to the ZFS source code
>>> > under different or more restrictive licensing terms, but what's
>>> > available now is always going to be available.
>>> The same of basic principle applies to BDB; originally it was BSD licensed
>>> in 1.x under FreeBSD, then GPLed in 2.x+ (IIRC), then left to pasture in
>>> 4.x after Oracle acquired Sleepycat DB. MySQL is GPLv2 today... who
>>> knows what it might be tomorrow...
>> BDB was never GPL'ed; it was and still is BSD-licensed.
> IANAL, but that is not a BSD license. It is the Sleepycat license,
> which is compatible with GPL.
> The giveaway is in section 3:
> * 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
> * how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any
> * accompanying software that uses the DB software.
> The '.. any accompanying software' clause makes it quite like the GPL.
Dan and Tom,
You both are correct, according to ye great wikipedia:
Thanks for the correction,
More information about the freebsd-current