Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Doesn't Recommend Using ZFS On Linux

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

  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    The license is not suspect. See the SFLC.
    Don't make me laugh.
    https://www.softwarefreedom.org/reso...rnel-cddl.html
    This is error if you think this says that CDDL is not suspect.

    There are prior ruling over MPL 1.1 that the SFLC totally does not consider and it openly admits that there are areas in cddl without a clear understanding what the heck it means in simple terms the license is suspect those areas may have a different meaning to what you expect when we get a court order over them.

    In response to such an objection, all distributors would no doubt cease distributing such combinations,
    This is a mistake as well. Different distributions are made in different countries on these unclear license what is legal in one country can be illegal in another. This is partly why Ubuntu and Debian response to CDDL is different.

    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    Also, Oracle is sitting on enough patents that no one using Linux (other than Oracle Linux) is safe given the concerns about Oracle if you want to go down that road.
    Yes Oracle is sitting on a lot of patents. But large section of Oracle patent pool is not usable because rulings over GPL and other things around patents. ZFS is in the location where those patents have be considered.

    https://www.techworld.com.au/article...ent_litigation

    So oracle has the right to the patent licenses to use ZFS that cover CDDL works. But netapp is sitting on patents that that could cover ZFS who has sued.

    Please note I said "sitting in the patents" not that all those patents own to Oracle. Oracle is the only party who as the information on who has patents against ZFS and the terms of use of those patents as a collective. So we need Oracle legal to be answering questions on ZFS.

    Think SFLC goes if the Linux kernel developers object. One problem "kernel licensors" is not worst problem. Netapp the patent holder who could object to ZFS entering kernel mainline they are one of the parties who also holds copyright to parts of the ZFS stuff used by SUN.

    So while ZFS for Linux contains any of the old SUN code you can have Netapp as a copyright holder in mix so kiss good buy to your licensor agreement. Again without SUN legal information that Oracle holds how many more parties are there like this. So the argument that consensus could exist with the current ZFS for Linux source trees it cannot exist.

    Leave a comment:


  • k1e0x
    replied
    Originally posted by jaypatelani View Post
    Why not use HammerFS?
    I would.. I like it. (HAMMER2)
    A) it's not mature.
    B) it's not ported to anything (Go get it Linux! It's a free FS better than anything you have and it's BSD Licensed)

    Leave a comment:


  • k1e0x
    replied
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post

    Sorry but nobody gives a shit about FreeBSD, it's used by 5 People around the world, and don't come now with some Playstation or other devices that might use it, because there you will never use ZFS. So nobody gives a shit to be compatible with them, if that OS would be so great nobody would care to bring ZFS to Linux in the first place because they just would use that System and move on. But people can forgo ZFS but they can't forgo Linux.

    So now let's Talk about Apple and to be complete also about MS, both don't offer YOU any solution to even have something between windows and Apple that fullfills your wishes. So if they don't give a shit about your problem why does the Linux community have to care about apple or windows support?

    So the only shiny feature FreeBSD has over other OSes especially Linux is native ZFS support so if you ask for a alternative to ZFS there is literally no reason to use this OS period. So then let's talk apple + linux support, Veracrypt seems to be the most suggested solution. you have then a encrypted file on your device that get's mounted as FS, the Filesystem below would probably easiest to use HFS+ because both Oses support that.
    Lots of people use FreeBSD. So much so it's on the top cloud providers in the world such as Amazon, Azure, Google Cloud and others. They don't offer that support to an OS with 5 users.. In fact most of them don't offer support to many popular Linux distros.. only the major ones like RedHat, Ubuntu and Suse. No Arch, no Manjaro, no Gentoo, no Alpine.. only major Linux and FreeBSD.. Odd that.. lol maybe you need to educate yourself or adjust your worldview.. dunno.

    Veracrypt does work.. and due to encryption ensuring integrity does ensure the entire volume is correct but doesn't provide an individual block checksum.. Seems like it might be easier to loose the entire volume on Veracrypt than on ZFS... ZFS is easier too.. and it's got snapshots.. shiny. lol

    Edit:
    BTW - Distrowatch.com just switched from hosting on Debian to FreeBSD.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/freebsd/com...o_freebsd_ama/
    Last edited by k1e0x; 01-14-2020, 04:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    Its not just that is a Oracle copyright. Its a Oracle copyright on something that is a suspect license that you cannot be sure you are following it correctly. Please note Oracle is also sitting in the patents over ZFS as well.
    The license is not suspect. See the SFLC. Also, Oracle is sitting on enough patents that no one using Linux (other than Oracle Linux) is safe given the concerns about Oracle if you want to go down that road.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    Oracle owns at least that much of the copyright of the Linux kernel. This is also true for glibc, MAC OS X, FreeBSD, etcetera. If you want to avoid their copyrights, your choices would be Minix, Haiku and Windows, although they might own portions of those of which I am unaware.
    Its not just that is a Oracle copyright. Its a Oracle copyright on something that is a suspect license that you cannot be sure you are following it correctly. Please note Oracle is also sitting in the patents over ZFS as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by Slartifartblast View Post

    Even Oracle owning 0.0001% copyright would give me the willies given the current API copyright nonsense going on.
    Oracle owns at least that much of the copyright of the Linux kernel. This is also true for glibc, MAC OS X, FreeBSD, etcetera. If you want to avoid their copyrights, your choices would be Minix, Haiku and Windows, although they might own portions of those of which I am unaware.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slartifartblast
    replied
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    Linus clearly doesn't understand the problem.

    OracleZFS != OpenZFS in the same way MySQL != MariaDB
    Oracle does not own OpenZFS. More than 50% of OpenZFS is not copyright to Oracle. It's copyright to the OpenZFS developers
    Even Oracle owning 0.0001% copyright would give me the willies given the current API copyright nonsense going on.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Linus is such a boomer.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    That doesn't explain anything to me. Are you trying to say that Linux doesn't provide the source code free of charge? Otherwise, why mention it as some kind of evidence that Linux is incompatible with CDDL?
    Free of Charge and legally restricted are two different things.

    Linux kernel license Gplv2 and ZFS CDDL is provided "free of charge" as in you don't need to pay money. But they are only legal to use if you obey the terms of license so are legally restricted.

    https://rosenlaw.com/wp-content/uplo...Litigation.pdf This is a old 2004 document that it would pay you to read.

    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
    CDDL requires that the ZFS source code is included as CDDL and CDDL only (aka the license of the source code files of ZFS cannot be relicensed) at the same time GPLv2 requires that "the work is to be licensed as a whole .. under the terms of this License".
    Sorry no there is a bug in CDDL that comes into play as well due to what was removed that has not been tested in court.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20060816...PL_redline.pdf
    3.6. Larger Works
    You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software.
    The highlighted bit is it the following:
    1) CDDL have to be declared in the whole works license and declare was it not CDDL.
    2) Can you have large work license not be CDDL and declare where CDDL is.
    3) both of above
    4) None of above no allowed license overlap so no whole of work license allowed at all.
    That line does not exactly say.

    So legally both GPLv2 and CDDL could be cat fighting for the master Larger work license there is no court ruling for exactly what that line in CDDL in fact means and that is a big problem.

    So the idea that CDDL is only limited to files may be wrong. MPL 1.1 had other parts that are removed from CDDL limiting the meaning of that bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

    No that is not what I said and I even clarified it after the quote. How on earth did you miss that?

    CDDL requires that the ZFS source code is included as CDDL and CDDL only (aka the license of the source code files of ZFS cannot be relicensed) at the same time GPLv2 requires that "the work is to be licensed as a whole .. under the terms of this License".

    So if you include ZFS you no longer can release the Linux kernel source code as a whole under the terms of the GPLv2. For that to happen you would have to either break the license of the CDDL and relicense the ZFS code to GPL or you would have to break the GPL, neither of which is something that the Kernel developers are willing to do since that would open some really ugly consequences when preventing other parties from violating the GPL of the kernel.
    https://www.softwarefreedom.org/reso...rnel-cddl.html

    That being said, you can always request the ZFS source code. The CDDL might be more like the LGPL in terms of letting you mix in proprietary code, but as far as I know, no one actually does.

    You probably want to take up your complaints about not being able to get kernel source code with Nvidia, IBM (GPFS), Broadcom, etcetera. They are the ones not releasing their code as OSS. Ironically, this is a situation that the mainline kernel created via the module interface to allow ports of drivers because it helped it become popular in the early days. The GPL is concerned with derived works and being from other systems, those modules are not derived from Linux, even if they were adapted to work with it through an interface made to allow for them.
    Last edited by ryao; 01-13-2020, 02:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X