On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 01:04:59PM -0700, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20 at 14:19, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Tim wrote:
> >> Oracle: It should be an interesting ride to say the least. I guess we'll
> >> see just how much they love linux... either zfs et. all will become GPL, or
> >> we'll see their true colors. I'm secretly hoping for the latter (as long
> >> as
> >> they keep it open sourced).
> > I don't think that GPL would be very wise, although a dual-license may be
> > ok. Linux would need GPLv2, which is now out of date.
> GPL v2 may not be the most recent version, but a lot of people prefer
> GPLv2 to GPLv3, in the same way that some people might prefer Solaris
> 8 to Solaris 10, or Linux 2.4 kernels to the 2.6 series.
> I don't know who they are, but they certainly exist.
I wouldn't say GPLv2 is out of date. In fact, I don't think it'll ever
go away as a lot of people see it as being more "free" than GPLv3.
So, yes, GPLv3 has a higher version number, but it hardly obsoletes
(I think I'm basically agreeing with what you said here)
zfs-discuss mailing list