search for: gplger

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "gplger".

Did you mean: dilger
2015 Jun 01
0
Native ZFS on Linux
...do it this way.... Note that it is without doubt that ZFS was not derived from the Linux kernel and thus cannot be a derived work. Combining ZFS and Linux creates a so called "collective work" where each part can have it's own license. See: http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/pdf/025-168.pdf line 70 (PDF line 46). This is a GPL book from real lawyers that won the Harald Welte cases! Important facts: - ZFS has been developed independendtly from Linux - ZFS of course works without Linux (when in OpenSolaris). I however know that the FSF acts like the Mafia when it c...
2015 Jun 01
2
Native ZFS on Linux
> > > OK, plese note that I am not willing to tolerate anti-oss claims and will > continue to correct similar false claims. If you don't like those > discussions > at all, you should try to avoid false claims and the need for corrections. > If I were RedHat, including a non GPL filesystem into my operating system would make me sweat a bit. Intel were facing a similar
2015 Apr 28
1
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
...ries and only in this case) no more than to put the GPL work under GPL and to make anything, needed to re-create the binary, to be made available under a license that allows redistribution. See e.g. the book about the GPL from the lawyers of Harald Welte. http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/pdf/025-168.pdf See page 85 (PDF page 60) see the lower half of the paragraph numbered "23". > > In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can do > > with GPL and CDDL as well. > > No, you can't. Section 6 of the GPL states that &quot...
2015 Apr 27
4
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote: > > > >> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal > >> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same > >> process at runtime unless there is an alternate