Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 88

Thread: OpenZFS Launches To Promote Open-Source ZFS

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Dortmund, Germany
    Posts
    10

    Default

    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    Quote 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?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

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

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default

    What? ZFS has always been CDDL Licensed.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •