Originally posted by Stellarwind
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Canonical Talks Up Ubuntu 16.04 LTS With ZFS, LXD
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 1
-
Originally posted by chrisb View Post
This. Canonical is taking a bit of a risk - in the best case they get to ship ZFS, but in the worst case it will be a PR disaster if they lose against Oracle and have to withdraw ZFS after tens of thousands of customers have already started using it. Once it's out there being used in the wild there will be no viable automated upgrade route back to ext4 (or whatever), and customer systems will be unbootable if Canonical is forced to push kernel upgrades that don't support ZFS.
Comment
-
Oracle doesn't even own ZFS. They own the parts that they've written recently. Everything that was open-sourced is owned by the original authors, most of which don't even work for Oracle.
There are all kinds of systems shipping with ZFS. Canonical isn't doing anything new here. The GPL incompatibility is the only question mark, not Oracle's position.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by tegs View Post
Because he wrote all versions of the GPL. Idiot.
I'm going to write a license that is going to turn whoever accepts it into an indentured servant.
According to your logic, people will have to follow it and pick cotton in my backyard. Because, apparently, a license text trumps binding law now...
Comment
-
Originally posted by finalzone View PostMeaning the CDDL license was deliberately made incompatible GPL (that came before CDDL exists) by SUN engineers for redistribution.
The fact that the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL has got nothing to do with being deliberate or promoting Solaris over GNU/Linux.
Furthermore, the CDDL has good reasons for its existence.
Back then, the GPL was missing an explicit patent grant.
The GPL is project based, whereas the CDDL is file based (which, by the by, is one of the main reasons the GPL folks consider it incompatible to their license). The latter making it much easier to argue possible copyright violations.
The CDDL was tailored towards adhering to the DMCA and European copyright law. The GPL was not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by chrisb View Post
This. Canonical is taking a bit of a risk - in the best case they get to ship ZFS, but in the worst case it will be a PR disaster if they lose against Oracle and have to withdraw ZFS after tens of thousands of customers have already started using it. Once it's out there being used in the wild there will be no viable automated upgrade route back to ext4 (or whatever), and customer systems will be unbootable if Canonical is forced to push kernel upgrades that don't support ZFS.
Also, Oracle would be a bunch of idiots if the decided to sue Canonical anytime soon, as even if they won there is no money to be milked from Canonical.
AND, the ZFS on linux isn't using exactly Oracle code, but code that was opensourced by others and Oracle is using as a base for their ZFS which is closed source or something.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
ZFS for boot drives? wut?
Also, Oracle would be a bunch of idiots if the decided to sue Canonical anytime soon, as even if they won there is no money to be milked from Canonical.
AND, the ZFS on linux isn't using exactly Oracle code, but code that was opensourced by others and Oracle is using as a base for their ZFS which is closed source or something.
It also wasn't open sourced by others. ZFS was open sourced by the original development team at Sun Microsystems (now part of Oracle).
The meat of ZoL is still that same code developed at Sun.
Comment
-
Originally posted by unixfan2001 View PostIt also wasn't open sourced by others. ZFS was open sourced by the original development team at Sun Microsystems (now part of Oracle).
The meat of ZoL is still that same code developed at Sun.
The point here is that GPL is incompatible with CDDL, not the contrary.
Sure, some say it was made to be incompatible and waah waah wahh Oracle Evil, but if the violation is on the GPL side and not on the CDDL side, Oracle cannot really do anything about it without changing license.
So unless Oracle changes licensing of the code already in the wild, which I doubt is feasible at all (theoretically doable as they have the IP, but feasible... hmm), they don't really have any standing for suing anyone using ZFS on linux.
Here the only one that can really sue is some copyright holder of GPL code in linux kernel.
Comment
-
Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post
Can we please cut the FUD short?
The fact that the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL has got nothing to do with being deliberate or promoting Solaris over GNU/Linux.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostSo unless Oracle changes licensing of the code already in the wild, which I doubt is feasible at all (theoretically doable as they have the IP, but feasible... hmm), they don't really have any standing for suing anyone using ZFS on linux.
Here the only one that can really sue is some copyright holder of GPL code in linux kernel.
Comment
Comment