On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 03:58:46PM +0200, Dan Naumov wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Marc Espie <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 02:29:51PM +0200, Dan Naumov wrote: > >> > >> The question of why 2 different BSDs have no issues including specific > >> code into their base, while another does is a valid one. When asked > >> "hard questions", labeling the person asking them a troll is sadly a > >> common occurrence on the internet. > > > > If you want to do something productive instead of acting like a clueless > > troll, go pester oracle until they release zfs under an acceptable licence > > for us. > > "While some other BSD projects have more loose policies regarding > introducing new code into their base system, our policy is to only > include BSD-licensed code" > > It seems that for several people who have replied, writing a simple, > complete, coherent and civil answer like that was way beyond their > capabilities. Why? Was it that hard? No, one MUST insert snide > remarks, derogatory comments and call the person asking the question a > troll. If acting like that is what makes you feel better about > yourself, you are in a bad place, I can only suggest therapy, it works > for millions of people. > > - Sincerely, > Dan Naumov >
Oddly enough, while 2 of the 3 main BSDs include ZFS with a bending of the rules, the Linux kernel does not. They currently have ZFS via FUSE because of license incompatibilities. (how many layers of abstraction can one have?) Having had used it on OpenSolaris and FreeBSD, I'd give my left nut for it to be on OpenBSD[0] but that won't change license issues. The fact that the project is inflexible in license requirements is a good thing IMHO. The project is "pure", not many other widely used systems can make that claim. If you *really* need it, there are other ways to have it. Gord [0] - not a real offer. Put down your compilers.
