On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? > > There is no licensing issue, but there are OpenSource enemies that spread a > fairy tale about an alleged licensing issue. > > The only problem with integrating ZFS into Linux is that the VFS interface from > Linux is inferior to the one from OpenSolaris and as a result, there is a need > to first implement missing interfaces. > > Jörg > Guys ... let's try not to have a license fight again on the list. Sometimes these things get way out of hand. This list is not a place for legal advise .. let's let the attorneys who actually know the law and the maintainers of programs decide what license they use and what it means. Whatever is in RHEL sources, that is what will be in official CentOS Linux .. and if you want something else (ie, ZFS) .. then get like minded people and start a SIG to maintain that for CentOS on the CentOS-devel mailing list. Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20150601/1cc82049/attachment-0004.sig>