Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenZFS Launches To Promote Open-Source ZFS

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
    Non-GPL projects are irrelevant even if they're technically open source.
    Wayland, X and Mesa aren't GPL licensed.

    Comment


    • #22
      Christ, this is stupid.

      Look at this page:

      http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

      If you're using Linux, chances are that you're running software with practically every license on that page. So what's the problem? "If it's not GPL, it's not relevant" we've had the argument often enough that I won't repeat it in all its glory, but the simple version goes like this:

      Linux can, and does, use BSD licensed software in its kernel.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
        +1

        Non-GPL projects are irrelevant even if they're technically open source.
        So just remove the irrelevant projects X and Wayland from your systems. In the real world we can agree that they are still relevant in the meantime.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
          So just remove the irrelevant projects X and Wayland from your systems. In the real world we can agree that they are still relevant in the meantime.
          Wait... you mean you're not reading Phoronix from a Lynx browser?

          Comment


          • #25
            Somebody should just post a ZFS pull request and see what happens.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by johnc View Post
              Wait... you mean you're not reading Phoronix from a Lynx browser?
              Nope, I use the MPL licensed Firefox for it. Another irrelevant non-GPL software.

              Comment


              • #27
                What? ZFS has always been CDDL Licensed.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by ksec View Post
                  What? ZFS has always been CDDL Licensed.
                  Of course. And we are saying is that it should be BSD or MIT (or similar GPL compatible) licensed to be fully usable by any OS.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by dibal View Post
                    Is there a rewrite under GPL planned ? If it is not going to GPL, it does not matter.
                    The original copyright belongs to Oracle now, they are definitely not going to change it, and if by some miracle they did I'd hope they would be smart enough to use a license that the current users of ZFS can actually tolerate, like the BSD2.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by johnc View Post
                      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?
                      It is split between Oracle and the rest of the world. After backwards incompatible things were added starting to be added to the open source zfs v28, it was decided to adopt an approach that would ensure ZFS would remain compatible between the different distributions, like FreeBSD, IllumOS and ZOL. The version number was changed to v5000 (to ensure there would never be confusion with Oracle and the v34 etc) and instead would adopt 'feature flags', a set of flags stored in the metadata that describe what features the zpool supports (like asynchronous destruction (read-only compatible) and lz4 compression). These flags also contain a marker that describes if they are 'read-only compatible'. For example, if the async_destroy feature is enabled on a pool and you are using an older version of ZFS that does not understand that feature, it is possible to mount the zpool read-only and still read the data. However lz4 is obviously not read-only compatible, you cannot read the files if you cannot decompress them.

                      This is one of the main goals of the OpenZFS project, to ensure that the various open source implementations remain compatible. The ultimate goal is to reduce the code differences between the various implementations to ensure updates are easily shared between the various vendors.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X