Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Doesn't Recommend Using ZFS On Linux

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    No, but they do get to decide if it's moral or not.. and the creators of this technology want it in Linux by their own words.
    Wherever did you get the silly idea that morality came into play about legal matters?

    Bryan illustrates that Sun couldn't use the GPL for Solaris because they needed closed source driver compatibility.
    Sure, but they could have easily used a BSD license. I will grant you there could have been many different reasons they chose to go the MPL route, and not being in that room none of us will ever know for sure. However, I do know someone who was in that room states that being GPL-incompatible was one of the primary reasons behind it. Maybe they are lying, maybe not. In the end it really doesn't matter.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 01-09-2020, 10:43 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post

      But you're wrong. What Oracle's lawyers or Larry Ellison feels, is irrelevant. It's what the license says that's important. For the same reason, the license can be incompatible with GPL even if that wasn't the intention; it doesn't matter what the intention was or how the current owner feels about it now.
      Oh, if only that's the way our legal system really worked.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
        Sure, but they could have easily used a BSD license. I will grant you there could have been many different reasons they chose to go the MPL route, and not being in that room none of us will ever know for sure.
        If you are a GPL proponent then you should applaud Sun's decisions to go copyleft over permissive. No?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
          The spirit of the GPL and CDDL are the same.
          This is wrong.

          https://www.zdnet.com/article/suns-n...ource-license/

          Back in 2004 when SUN creates CDDL its spirit was to protect Solaris technology from being integrated into Linux and was written intentionally GPL incompatible..

          https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-critic...ource-license/
          Sun personal was publicly questioned about it.

          Schwartz singled out the GPL provision that says source code may be mixed with other code only if the other code also is governed by the GPL. That provision is intended to create a body of software that must remain liberated from proprietary constraints. But Schwartz said that some people he's spoken to dislike it because it precludes them from using open-source software as a foundation for proprietary projects.
          This is not some ex-employee at the time. "Sun Microsystems President Jonathan Schwartz" is the boss who was giving the orders to the the legal department that wrote CDDL.

          CDDL is strictly written to be incompatible with because SUN President wanted to use CDDL works in proprietary projects.

          If it was just about Solaris excepting third party drivers they could have used the Apache 2.0 license at the time and not write their own.

          This is the difference in spirit between GPL and CDDL. Yes the fragments of parts at first on Solaris that were not CDDL at the first open sourcing was also by Sun President at the time orders.

          Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
          The question of compatibility has come up many time and due to the fact that the spirit and functions of these license are almost identical and the differences apply to specifics most lawyers agree they would be compatible.
          There is a problem here the Sun lawyers who wrote CDDL say it incompatible under the direction of Sun President and is designed that way. Most lawyers who argue that the spirit and function are the same forget if you get to court and start dispute that spirit of two licenses are the same the question comes what was the intention of the party that created both licenses. At this point the spirit arguement goes out the window as a functional option.

          Yes the lower staff in SUN who were giving advice on what CDDL had to have to the legal department on the technical requirements were not being told what the orders from the President of SUN to the legal department of SUN. So to the low staff CDDL did not look like it was being written to be intentionally GPL incompatible and they were being used as test people to make sure SUN could publicly argue that this was not some intentional harm. Of course the reality in the legal department of SUN as people who are now ex have also stated was that the orders were to be incompatible in hard to see ways once their NDA was up. Yes this was to attempt to make a viral form of license to slowly get back control long term.

          This is just the facts of history we have to live with.

          Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
          Also the GNU has issued exceptions to much more restrictive licenses than the CDDL.
          Where never on GPLv2 works. Linux kernel is a GPLv2 work with exception for user space code.

          Nvidia closed source driver on Linux is well and truly pushing a license loop hole but that requires GPL wrapper code that cannot be merged into mainline Linux and the fact the binary blob is not built for Linux. Nvidia closed source driver module is developed for windows then ported to Linux. ZFS on Linux is not developed on Solaris/freebsd then ported to Linux any more so it does not meet this condition any more so its legal position is more peril than it was before.

          http://vger.kernel.org/lpc_bpf2018_t...F-LPC-2018.pdf

          Final solution to Dtrace for Linux has been not to use any CDDL code in Linux kernel at all or at least not directly. The developers of Dtrace never could get permission out of Oracle legal department to send CDDL code upstream to the Linux kernel. Remember this is personal working for Oracle not some third party as ZFS on Linux is. So they have access to SUN complete old legal records not the fragments that have leaked out to the media with statements and leaks. So the Oracle Dtrace developers have worked around this legal wall of CDDL by obsoleting the code to use something else Linux kernel provided equal or converting to BPF that loaded from userspace so using the Linus kernel license exception.

          ZFS path forwards if you follow Dtrace is the fuse/bpf path or somehow get Oracle legal department to sign off thinking this was impossible with Dtrace I would suspect ZFS does not have a hope in hell of this.


          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

            If you are a GPL proponent then you should applaud Sun's decisions to go copyleft over permissive. No?
            I'm not, though. I think both options have their uses.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

              I'm not, though. I think both options have their uses.
              Ya me either. lol Liked. I do think the CDDL is a good license tho, I'd say it's probably the best OSL to come out of a megacorp.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                This is wrong.

                https://www.zdnet.com/article/suns-n...ource-license/

                Back in 2004 when SUN creates CDDL its spirit was to protect Solaris technology from being integrated into Linux and was written intentionally GPL incompatible..

                https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-critic...ource-license/
                Sun personal was publicly questioned about it.



                This is not some ex-employee at the time. "Sun Microsystems President Jonathan Schwartz" is the boss who was giving the orders to the the legal department that wrote CDDL.

                CDDL is strictly written to be incompatible with because SUN President wanted to use CDDL works in proprietary projects.

                If it was just about Solaris excepting third party drivers they could have used the Apache 2.0 license at the time and not write their own.

                This is the difference in spirit between GPL and CDDL. Yes the fragments of parts at first on Solaris that were not CDDL at the first open sourcing was also by Sun President at the time orders.



                There is a problem here the Sun lawyers who wrote CDDL say it incompatible under the direction of Sun President and is designed that way. Most lawyers who argue that the spirit and function are the same forget if you get to court and start dispute that spirit of two licenses are the same the question comes what was the intention of the party that created both licenses. At this point the spirit arguement goes out the window as a functional option.

                Yes the lower staff in SUN who were giving advice on what CDDL had to have to the legal department on the technical requirements were not being told what the orders from the President of SUN to the legal department of SUN. So to the low staff CDDL did not look like it was being written to be intentionally GPL incompatible and they were being used as test people to make sure SUN could publicly argue that this was not some intentional harm. Of course the reality in the legal department of SUN as people who are now ex have also stated was that the orders were to be incompatible in hard to see ways once their NDA was up. Yes this was to attempt to make a viral form of license to slowly get back control long term.

                This is just the facts of history we have to live with.


                Where never on GPLv2 works. Linux kernel is a GPLv2 work with exception for user space code.

                Nvidia closed source driver on Linux is well and truly pushing a license loop hole but that requires GPL wrapper code that cannot be merged into mainline Linux and the fact the binary blob is not built for Linux. Nvidia closed source driver module is developed for windows then ported to Linux. ZFS on Linux is not developed on Solaris/freebsd then ported to Linux any more so it does not meet this condition any more so its legal position is more peril than it was before.

                http://vger.kernel.org/lpc_bpf2018_t...F-LPC-2018.pdf

                Final solution to Dtrace for Linux has been not to use any CDDL code in Linux kernel at all or at least not directly. The developers of Dtrace never could get permission out of Oracle legal department to send CDDL code upstream to the Linux kernel. Remember this is personal working for Oracle not some third party as ZFS on Linux is. So they have access to SUN complete old legal records not the fragments that have leaked out to the media with statements and leaks. So the Oracle Dtrace developers have worked around this legal wall of CDDL by obsoleting the code to use something else Linux kernel provided equal or converting to BPF that loaded from userspace so using the Linus kernel license exception.

                ZFS path forwards if you follow Dtrace is the fuse/bpf path or somehow get Oracle legal department to sign off thinking this was impossible with Dtrace I would suspect ZFS does not have a hope in hell of this.

                I'm reading the same words you are and... that does not say. "GPL incompatible" to me. ?? How are you interpreting that quote that way? He's criticizing the GPL in the article for very good reasons and stating the CDDL does not have the same faults.. but nowhere am I reading "GPL incompatible" beyond that the license itself "he directed his lawyers to write" says it is compatible with other open source license.. being that it is file based.. that is even MORE compatible with other code.. not less. If you know Sun it was run from the bottom up, the engineers made the call not management. Management just tried to sell the stuff they created.

                Of course they wanted proprietary license compatibility.. It was Solaris.. they needed their third party drivers Sun didn't write to have the OS work.

                Who cares what Sun wanted anyhow.. maybe their lawyers are completely inept at writing a GPL incompatible license.. ok fine.. but the fact it is compatible due to the fact the the spirit is the same (both are copyleft open source licences) and the licenses apply to different things. (files and works)

                The CDDL in no way intrudes on the GPL. It is the GPL's vague (and illogical) definition of works where contention arises. In other words the "bug" needs to be assigned to the GNU.

                So example I write filesystems on FreeBSD called KFS under the K License that is fully permissive.
                I upstream it to Linux and magically it becomes legally defined a creation of Linux? That seem right to you? I shared it with Linux but it wasn't created there. I disagree with that aspect of the GPL.. I don't think that is a proper definition of works. That is the definition being applied here though.
                Last edited by k1e0x; 01-09-2020, 11:54 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                  i wonder what is intersection of groups of braindead people using zfs and and brandead people hating systemd
                  They use FreeBSD.

                  You know... the brain dead people at Netflix, Sony, Apple, NetApp, Cisco, Juniper... no one special.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                    I'm reading the same words you are and... that does not say. "GPL incompatible" to me. ?? How are you interpreting that quote that way? He's criticizing the GPL in the article for very good reasons and stating the CDDL does not have the same faults.. but nowhere am I reading "GPL incompatible" beyond that the license itself "he directed his lawyers to write" says it is compatible with other open source license.. being that it is file based.. that is even MORE compatible with other code.. not less.
                    Yet it written to be work based license incompatible intentionally and SUN president pointed to that section of GPL and their legal department back then quote the section of CDDL that is works based incompatible..

                    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                    Who cares what Sun wanted anyhow.. maybe their lawyers are completely inept at writing a GPL incompatible license.. ok fine.. but the fact it is compatible due to the fact the the spirit is the same (both are copyleft open source licences) and the licenses apply to different things. (files and works)
                    As so as you use spirit you are in trouble.
                    https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/spirit-of-the-law/
                    Spirit of the law refers to ideas that the creators of a particular law wanted to have effect. It is the intent and purpose of the lawmaker, or framer of the Constitution, as determined by a consideration of the whole context thereof. Spirit of law is determined form the letters and the circumstances surrounding its enactment.

                    So Spirit like it or not you cannot say who cares what Sun wanted. Spirit in legal you have to look at those who created the item and take their intention at the time with CDDL that SUN like it or not. The spirit of GNU that created GPL and spirit SUN when they created CDDL are massively different. So spirit are an arguement is not a valid option.

                    You have admitted to the incompatibility that is between files and works so they don't have contract compadiblity.

                    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                    So example I write filesystems on FreeBSD called KFS under the K License that is fully permissive.
                    I upstream it to Linux and magically it becomes a work of Linux? That seem right to you?
                    That is just how works based licenses are. Yet works based licenses are not as bad as most people make out. CDDL contains a clause where that is not allowed to happen this is what makes it GPL incompatible and that clause is intentional.

                    There was a interesting point with BSD/MIT licensed works taken into the Linux kernel. The reality is the BSD/MIT parts cannot have their fully permissive license removed yet can be distributed as GPL while still maintain there means to be used under the permissive license. Linux graphics drivers being ported to freebsd in most cases are MIT licensed not GPL once extracted from the Linux kernel source. So the K License in your case is not destroy by it coming part of the Linux work. The GPL license still allows non GPL works to be a independent work and to be extracted from the Linux kernel source.

                    CDDL on the other hand does not in fact allow it self to be shipped under another license.

                    By the way CDDL issue comes from MPL 1.1 there was alteration in MPL 2.0 that allows MPL 2.0 to be used in a GPL work while still protecting it from being integrated into the GPL work in ways it cannot be removed back to MPL only work. So a new version of CDDL with the MPL 2.0 fixes would correct the problem as well but I don't see Oracle re-licensing stuff to fix it.

                    MPL 2.0 shows that you can have a license based around files that is compatible with works based licenses like GPL and protect self from GPL viral effects.

                    The issues with MPL 1.1 were known well before 2004 and CDDL create. Yes 1998 MPL 1.1 was worked out to be legally incompatible with GPL. CDDL is started on a foundation in 2004 that anyone one doing their legal research would have known as GPL incompatible.

                    Sun was also hoping with CDDL to push GPLv3 to be less restrictive that is not the case. CDDL and MPL 1.1 is not GPLv3 compatible either.


                    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                    I shared it with Linux but it wasn't created there. I disagree with that aspect of the GPL.. I don't think that is a proper definition of works. That is the definition being applied here though.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

                    Sorry gpl define of works predates gpl existence by over 100 years. So it is the proper definition of works. You share it with Linux kernel as a whole its protected by GPL. If it you can identify the segment inside GPL work that is a different work of a different license and extract it that is legal. Would pay for you to learn the proper works define and what really means before commenting any more.



                    Last edited by oiaohm; 01-10-2020, 12:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      As far as I know Oracle doesn't control any of the ZFS code that was CDDL'd before Oracle changed the license. The cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle. OpenZFS is not oracle code, its not Linux code, its not BSD code. It is its own thing that happens to be used in FreeBSD, Illumos and available on Linux. Any discussions here that say ZFS is bad because Oracle are ignoring the fact that basically none of the OpenZFS code has anything to do with Oracle at all. Oracle made a fork of it and went their own way and are irrelevant to the discussion.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X