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 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


    • #72
      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; 10 January 2020, 01:36 AM.

      Comment


      • #73
        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


        • #74
          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


          • #75
            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; 10 January 2020, 01:57 AM.

            Comment


            • #76
              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


              • #77
                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


                • #78
                  Originally posted by drjohnnyfever View Post
                  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.
                  There is a historic ruling on MPL 1.1 since CDDL contains the same terms there is really no need for a extra ruling.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                    CDDL is a limited copyleft not a weak copyleft. Weak copyleft is MPL 2.0 and LGPL.




                    Personal preferences don't really come into if CDDL is compatible with the Linux kernel or not. This is pure LOL wrong.



                    This is going to get fun.


                    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.



                    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.
                    Oh.. so you mean I have to release the code under both licenses exactly the same way. That is odd.. I thought the terms were "completely different"?

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by drjohnnyfever View Post
                      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.
                      http://lwn.net/1999/0211/a/lt-binary.html
                      Drop that arguement. Linus has never agreed with vendors linking proprietary drivers into the Linux kernel. if a update to the Linux kernel breaks a binary driver Linus does not care at all. ZFS out of tree is in the same location.


                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X