From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030369AbXDQOdI (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:33:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030370AbXDQOdI (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:33:08 -0400 Received: from seahorse.shentel.net ([204.111.1.244]:47554 "EHLO seahorse.shentel.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030369AbXDQOdG (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:33:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:32:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tomasz_K=C5=82oczko?= cc: Theodore Tso , "David R. Litwin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20070417131045.GB18373@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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. 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.