[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ..neat wee litigation trap, was: zfs-fuse or zfsonlinux

On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:09:14 +0100, Jon wrote in message 
<[🔎] 20120512080914.GD27051@debian>:

> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:27:36AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> > And it's not a problem as a kernel module either, seeing as though
> > it's the user who has to manually load it. For that, the license
> > could be proprietarded.
> It's a problem if you ever want help if/when there's a bug or problem
> with the module, since the kernel will be marked 'tainted'.

..another question is, what kinda performance enhanchement can
zfs-fuse or zfsonlinux deliver, 5%, 50% or even 500%, compared 
to the best GPL file systems?  And, no risk of vendor lock-in?

..and, is that performance enhanchement worth the litigation 
risk?  How much has Google paid to their lawyers to date in 
Oracle v Google?  What kinda future would you have, if you 
put yourself, or, your employer in such an expensive pinch?

..now, a totally different thing is, learning about zfs-fuse 
and zfsonlinux so you can make crazy money helping people 
migrate away from these litigation traps, which is what 
I gather OP really, really, really wants to do. ;o)

..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.

Reply to: