3 ms·
Granted. But Canonical's lawyers are not canonical. There's legal disagreement, and saying "Ubuntu did it" doesn't make those problems disappear. (Sadly)
by ethbro 9y ago
Granted. But Canonical's lawyers are not canonical.
There's legal disagreement, and saying "Ubuntu did it" doesn't make those problems disappear. (Sadly)
- gribbly 9y ago>>But Canonical's lawyers are not canonical. Hmm... not sure what you meant by this statement ?
- ethbro 9y ago"authorized; recognized; accepted" I.e. their opinion is not the only opinion on the matter.
- FireBeyond 9y agoI haven't seen any legal opinion since Canonical's press release, which states that they consulted with counsel who believed that they were in compliance with both licenses. I -have- seen a lot of argument online, opinions and otherwise that disagree with this, but not anything from a lawyer - mainly "philosophical" or opining on the "intent" of the GPL, rather than "based on clauses x, y, and z, this is impermissible". Which is not to say, if something of an opinion exists in response to Canonical's release of ZFS, I would love to see it - a legal opinion, not armchair lawyering or opinionizing.