Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenZFS Launches To Promote Open-Source ZFS

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
    Out of genuine curiosity... Why?
    I don't think GPL is necessary, but it's difficult to see the project gaining too much widespread support if it can't be included upstream in linux. It will just be for those people comfortable with deeply modifying their own OS away from distro defaults, which is a fairly small segment of the overall userbase. Although I'm not sure ZFS is even particularly interested in supporting random desktop users, so maybe they don't view that as a problem.

    Comment


    • #12
      I've read the rhetoric on how great ZOL is and all that, but trusting something as important as the filesystem implementation to out-of-tree patches just seems fundamentally wrong. I would very much like to see this re-licensed under a GPL-compatible license.

      I use a parity RAID scheme for redundancy, but I don't have true back-up media. I'm not gonna fuck around with out-of-tree filesystems.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
        To be really free and usable by different OSes it should be BSD or MIT licensed.
        What can be put in a cage is not free.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by dibal View Post
          What can be put in a cage is not free.
          How can source code be put in a cage?

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by dibal View Post
            What can be put in a cage is not free.
            So X and Wayland according to you are not free, also many lines of code in the Linux kernel that are BSD licensed. If you don't like those "unfree" licenses feel free to remove those software and code, look how free you are without them.
            In the meantime people in the real world would be happy with BSD licensed ZFS.

            Comment


            • #16
              What is the status of the various ZFS pool versions? Is there only a split now between Oracle Solaris and the rest of the open implementations (FreeBSD, Linux, Illumos, etc.)? Or are all the open implementations fragmented as well?

              Comment


              • #17
                It's quite unlikely that ZFS will make it into any of my machines. I normaly have no problem with out of tree patches. But they can be removed at any time when upgrading to a new kernel. If I want a new kernel version and patches like BFS or BFQ haven't been rebased yet, that's no problem. The system will work without them. But once a patch is not optional and your data is in a ZFS filesystem, then you're locked in. Filesystems really need to be in the upstream kernel or use FUSE.

                Comment


                • #18
                  BSD is FSF and OpenSourceInitative approved

                  Originally posted by dibal View Post
                  What can be put in a cage is not free.
                  BSD is FSF, OpenSourceInitative approved, and compatible with the GPL

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_BSD_License#3-clause

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    A BSD-licence means it would be able to ship with the upstream kernel? Sweet. I just wonder what would happen to Btrfs if ZFS suddenly became available to everyone on Linux.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by dibal View Post
                      Is there a rewrite under GPL planned ? If it is not going to GPL, it does not matter.
                      +1

                      Non-GPL projects are irrelevant even if they're technically open source.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X