Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Doesn't Recommend Using ZFS On Linux

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

  • #71
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    The spirit of GNU that created GPL and spirit SUN when they created CDDL are massively different.
    How so? The CDDL itself says it's compatible with other licenses. And the effective terms are the same. You're using hearsay to make an argument the spirit isn't in line what what the document itself says.

    I haven't even seen the poof of the ex-sun employee saying "we made it gpl incompatible" only allegations of such and rumor.. Where as I've shown you proof of developers who wrote the code saying the opposite. The video I posted predates the existence of ZoL btw.
    Last edited by k1e0x; 01-10-2020, 01:12 AM.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by drjohnnyfever View Post
      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.
      Oracle bought all of SUN copyrights. OpenZFS still contains code under SUN copyright that today owns to Oracle. So if you want to re-license the OpenZFS you either need to get approval from Oracle or rebuild it without any SUN copyrighted bits. That still leaves the patents Oracle owns that cover ZFS that the patent grant only covers CDDL licensed as well.

      Sorry Oracle is not out the game at all.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
        How so? The CDDL itself says it's compatible with other licenses. And the effective terms are the same.
        Effective terms they are not the same. Are you kidding me.

        Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
        I haven't even seen the poof of the ex-sun employee saying "we made it gpl incompatible"
        CDDL was intentionally based off MPL 1.1 that was know to be incompatible with GPL in 1998. No changes in CDDL were done to fix this in fact some changes in fact made it worse.

        https://web.archive.org/web/20060816...PL_redline.pdf

        Here is the SUN drafting process where they took MPL 1.1 and converted it into CDDL.

        Section 13 of MPL 1.1 that could be used to allow GPLv2 compatibility was intentionally removed from CDDL. The clauses that make MPL 1.1 incompatible with GPL v2 are still there CDDL.

        If you were caring about being compatible with other licenses why would you start with one of the least compatible as your template and the proceed to make it worse.




        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

          Jonathan Schwarz is not a developer. Did you watch the video? You should watch it. If sun actually wanted to make a license that was incompatible.. why did they make it so vague? they could have just said. "this license is incompatible with the GPL, the end."
          He was the boss who instructed lawyers to deliberate create a license incompatible with GPL.

          Also your post there seems to indicate they opposite. He stabs at the GPL and I agree with him on it.. but the CDDL says it can be mixed with other licenses.
          Your logic is.. Sun didn't want the license to mix.. so they wrote a license that says it can be mixed?
          History showed their CDDL license caused incompatibility with GPL regardless as confirmed by one of very posts from the video you linked. Clearly, CDDL was a tool to get SUN control back in the market and failed its purpose. The rest of the points are explained by oiaohm. Better consult the lawyers because disregarding those key aspects is asking for legal trouble.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
            Effective terms they are not the same. Are you kidding me.


            CDDL was intentionally based off MPL 1.1 that was know to be incompatible with GPL in 1998. No changes in CDDL were done to fix this in fact some changes in fact made it worse.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20060816...PL_redline.pdf

            Here is the SUN drafting process where they took MPL 1.1 and converted it into CDDL.

            Section 13 of MPL 1.1 that could be used to allow GPLv2 compatibility was intentionally removed from CDDL. The clauses that make MPL 1.1 incompatible with GPL v2 are still there CDDL.

            If you were caring about being compatible with other licenses why would you start with one of the least compatible as your template and the proceed to make it worse.
            Because weak copyleft is a good thing? I prefer it to strong copyleft as it's more permissive less viral. The GPL has some serious faults.. this being one of them. Your entire argument is based on the fact that the GPL is broken.. because *other* licenses aren't compatible with *it*.

            Tell me.. what are the difference between the two terms.

            I modify GPL code in my product.. what must I do?
            Now I modify CDDL code in my product.. what must I do?
            Last edited by k1e0x; 01-10-2020, 01:36 AM.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

              Oracle bought all of SUN copyrights. OpenZFS still contains code under SUN copyright that today owns to Oracle. So if you want to re-license the OpenZFS you either need to get approval from Oracle or rebuild it without any SUN copyrighted bits. That still leaves the patents Oracle owns that cover ZFS that the patent grant only covers CDDL licensed as well.

              Sorry Oracle is not out the game at all.
              I didn't say the license could be whatever. CDDL is the status quo. Oracle didn't change anything there.

              It'd probably be hard for Linus to change the license to the Linux kernel if we wanted to considering all the copyrights in there that aren't his.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                He was the boss who instructed lawyers to deliberate create a license incompatible with GPL.


                History showed their CDDL license caused incompatibility with GPL regardless as confirmed by one of very posts from the video you linked. Clearly, CDDL was a tool to get SUN control back in the market and failed its purpose. The rest of the points are explained by oiaohm. Better consult the lawyers because disregarding those key aspects is asking for legal trouble.
                I'm not aware of any data that conclusively says CDDL is incompatible with the GPL anyway. I think the FSF asserts it is, but there's no legal ruling to the best of my knowledge.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Another point I'd like to make is that the CDDL issue is as much a problem with ZFS as it is with Linus not permitting the kernel to be licensed under the terms of the GPLv2 or the CDDL. Yes Linux has a lot more inertia than ZFS does on that front but right now Canonical are shipping distros with ZFS available. There are no real technical issues. Linus wants to be a dick about the CDDL but he's OK with vendors linking proprietary drivers into the kernel, doesn't give a second thought to it. Its all hooey.
                  Last edited by drjohnnyfever; 01-10-2020, 01:57 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by drjohnnyfever View Post
                    Another point I'd like to make is that the CDDL issue is equally as much a problem with ZFS as it is with Linus not permitting the kernel to be licensed under the terms of the GPLv2 or the CDDL. Yes Linux has a lot more inertia than ZFS does on that front, but right now Canonical are shipping distros with ZFS available. There are no real technical issues. Linus wants to be a dick about the CDDL but he's OK with vendors linking proprietary drivers into the kernel, doesn't give a second thought to it. Its all hooey.
                    This is very true.. it doesn't matter what Linus says we have ZFS for Linux right now.. all the technical problems are resolved with it being out of tree. I think that out of tree really is a blessing to be honest..

                    Not sure why ppl want it in tree anymore.

                    I'm using a supported filesystem and I need to upgrade my kernel.
                    apt-get upgrade

                    I'm using a evil out of tree <insert negative comments here> ZFS file system and I need ot upgrade my kernel.
                    apt-get upgrade

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                      Because weak copyleft is a good thing?
                      CDDL is a limited copyleft not a weak copyleft. Weak copyleft is MPL 2.0 and LGPL.


                      Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                      I prefer it to strong copyleft as it's more permissive less viral.
                      Personal preferences don't really come into if CDDL is compatible with the Linux kernel or not. This is pure LOL wrong.


                      Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                      Your entire argument is based on the fact that the GPL is broken.. because *other* licenses aren't compatible with *it*.
                      This is going to get fun.

                      Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                      I modify GPL code in my product.. what must I do?
                      There are requirement to either provided the source to your customer or provide a offer to provide the source to your customers. That is end of story basically. The code I put in the GPL work can be under my own license as long as the license is GPL compatible.

                      Please note your product is a work. GPL has classes that limit it effect on independent works.

                      Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                      Now I modify CDDL code in my product.. what must I do?
                      That modification must be under CDDL there is no allowance in CDDL at all to multi license because section 13 MPL 1.1 was removed and section 13 was added in MPL 1.1 because people worked out that MPL 1.0 was anti multi license.

                      Basically CDDL is a limited copyleft is in fact more restrictive on licensing than GPL. CDDL can even end up effecting the license you can sell product to customers under. Do notice how they changed code for software all over the license in CDDL. MPL and GPL licenses are very careful to use source code or code.

                      Bad legal ruling CDDL could be insanely viral. Basically depending what court you are in CDDL is either a weak copyleft or a strong copyleft many times stronger than GPL on how much of your product it claims.

                      CDDL is a badly written license legally like it or not. Some how I suspect it was intentional. Software has a lot more reach in courts than code.

                      The reason why CDDL is not GPL compatible is the reason why CDDL can be deadly viral. CDDL by design is not tolerate of any other license other than CDDL per file. So a file under CDDL needs to be CDDL only.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X