3 ms·
>That said, Matt Garret's Captain Ahab-like zeal of keeping one of the most useful pieces of open-source code away from Linux, while taking potshots at Ubuntu,
by davexunit 11y ago
>That said, Matt Garret's Captain Ahab-like zeal of keeping one of the most useful pieces of open-source code away from Linux, while taking potshots at Ubuntu, is really off-putting.
Your response to a large company violating the license that Linux is distributed under is to blame Matthew Garret for pointing it out?
- FireBeyond 11y agoThat's a little presumptuous. Violating? On one hand we have some opinions from people, some lawyers, some not, saying they think this could be a violation. On the other, there's equal opinions that this (or the way the did this) is -not- a violation. So I don't think it's particularly fair to reach for your pitchfork, either. Besides, his response had almost nothing to do with Ubuntu, it was "Garret's zeal in trying to keep ZFS off Linux" regardless of distro (which is true). "While taking potshots at Ubuntu" (which is also true, and on issues far wider than "including ZFS".
- ryao 11y agoCan you provide bar numbers of lawyers who would make that claim? So far, Matthew Garrett has yet to claim that any attorney said this is a problem. The only claim he has made (after I got him to clarify what was said) is that he met some attorneys who said that they were not absolutely sure that there is no problem. There are likely attorneys out there that make similar claims about the GPL software in general, so I really am not that concerned that he found a few attorneys that said that they were not sure.
- stubish 11y agoIndeed. ZFS, supported by Canonical. Its Canonical's considered legal opinion that there isn't a problem with ZFS, and if you disagree you can sue them. They put their balls on the table. Dare you to try cutting them off. You need a real lawyer to try that, not an armchair lawyer.