Oracle Could Still Make ZFS A First-Class Upstream Linux File-System

[k1e0x]

Here's a video from the author of the comment explaining how ZFS and Linux aren't completely in-compatible: https://youtu.be/6F9bscdqRpo?t=5m40s

Canonical/Debian/FreeBSD/Joyent do bundle ZFS with Linux/Other OSes, Oracle has had a commercial fork of ZFS for a few years now, and the OpenZFS and OpenIndiana projects are doing fine. If Oracle or Netapp are going to sue Canonical, or anyone working with OpenZFS, I think they would be laughed out of the courts.

He's exactly right. It's all open source and we should be able to use the best open source tool for the job. I don't know why Stallman has decreed that the CDDL is evil but... One thing everyone needs to keep in mind in this thread.. Oracle ZFS is not OpenZFS. If Oracle wants to get their version of ZFS in Linux then it would probably be a power play to own the technology? Oracle ZFS is also lacking a huge number of features OpenZFS has now.

They say on the slide "Oracle" ZFS in "Oracle" Linux.. that should be a clue.. just stay far away from this company and donate to Postgres.

[oiaohm]

He's exactly right. It's all open source and we should be able to use the best open source tool for the job. I don't know why Stallman has decreed that the CDDL is evil but... One thing everyone needs to keep in mind in this thread.. Oracle ZFS is not OpenZFS. If Oracle wants to get their version of ZFS in Linux then it would probably be a power play to own the technology? Oracle ZFS is also lacking a huge number of features OpenZFS has now.

They say on the slide "Oracle" ZFS in "Oracle" Linux.. that should be a clue.. just stay far away from this company and donate to Postgres.

http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page

You will find that the Linux version of OpenZFS is of "zfs on Linux:

https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/blob/master/COPYRIGHT

Zfs on Linux still uses CDDL so is still protected by the Oracle Patent deal with Netapp. So they have not been standing on their own two feet to know what Netapp feeling is.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/

Its not Stallman any legal assessment finds a problem. CDDL is very clear that you cannot multi-license due to the "only under the terms of this License" Clauses. Its possible to have a GPL/MIT work where both licenses apply. You cannot joint license CDDL work.

This results in legal problem is that zfs on Linux is required to carry around lot of duplication to what mainline Linux kernel provides.

Thinking the core code of ZFS been OpenZFS or Orcale ZFS is legally owned by Oracle the only party who can re-license from CDDL to something GPL compatible is Oracle. Oracle can only re-license if its not going to upset NetApp.

Please note when I say re-license I mean re-license as in the code base before re-license is CDDL after its no longer CDDL but some other license. The true copyright owner/s is legally allowed to re-license. With GPL its possible to Joint license while you migrate away from GPL if you need to.

The reality is Oracle ZFS would have to re-license before OpenZFS developers could start a re-license process.

Yes OpenZFS has more features of Oracle ZFS its also insanely bound to CDDL and they have no way to free themselves until Oracle moves.

[k1e0x]

http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page

You will find that the Linux version of OpenZFS is of "zfs on Linux:

https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/blob/master/COPYRIGHT

Zfs on Linux still uses CDDL so is still protected by the Oracle Patent deal with Netapp. So they have not been standing on their own two feet to know what Netapp feeling is.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/...zfs-and-linux/

Its not Stallman any legal assessment finds a problem. CDDL is very clear that you cannot multi-license due to the "only under the terms of this License" Clauses. Its possible to have a GPL/MIT work where both licenses apply. You cannot joint license CDDL work.

This results in legal problem is that zfs on Linux is required to carry around lot of duplication to what mainline Linux kernel provides.

Thinking the core code of ZFS been OpenZFS or Orcale ZFS is legally owned by Oracle the only party who can re-license from CDDL to something GPL compatible is Oracle. Oracle can only re-license if its not going to upset NetApp.

Please note when I say re-license I mean re-license as in the code base before re-license is CDDL after its no longer CDDL but some other license. The true copyright owner/s is legally allowed to re-license. With GPL its possible to Joint license while you migrate away from GPL if you need to.

The reality is Oracle ZFS would have to re-license before OpenZFS developers could start a re-license process.

Yes OpenZFS has more features of Oracle ZFS its also insanely bound to CDDL and they have no way to free themselves until Oracle moves.

"insanely bound"? I like the CDDL. File based copy left that's compatible with proprietary code. It's basically MPL, whats not to like? I think your wrong as the entire point of the CDDL is it can be combined with other licences. That's why Sun created it. The legal issue is derivative works and the GPL not allowing such. Or better yet the insane concept that the GPL has to absorb all software on earth and every piece of code in Linux is a derivative works of Linux. (This is why you see ZFS in every OS *except* Linux.. the GPL is the issue not the CDDL) It's also silly to to claim ZFS is a derivative work of Linux when it's clearly an Illumos technology. It can't run without the "Solaris Porting Layer" SPL. "Only under the terms of this licence" also applies to the files in OpenZFS code. Not anything else.

I don't know anything about the patents with Netapp but if Stallman can make an exception, he should do so before Oracle decides to follow through. If you want ZFS in Linux, you definitely want OpenZFS that is maintained by a large number of the people that developed it at Sun (Matt Ahrens, Adam Leventhal, George Wilson etc.)

Oracle also doesn't have full copyright to OpenZFS. I think that blog post is wrong.. Oracle doesn't *make* an open source version of ZFS. They have no control over OpenZFS.

Also on that blog post

We believe Sun was aware when drafting CDDLv1 of the incompatibilities; in fact, our research into its history indicates the GPLv2-incompatibility was Sun's design choice. At the time, Sun's apparent goal was to draw developers away from GNU and Linux development into Solaris. Not only did Sun not want code from GNU and Linux in Solaris, more importantly, Sun did not want technological advantages from Solaris' kernel to appear in Linux.

That is a conspiracy theory. The reason was the code was for OpenSolaris as a whole ZFS being just a part of it and Sun required closed source drivers in Solaris. Non optional. They could NEVER have used the GPL for Solaris. Frankly the GPL is the wrong model for open source and causes nothing but strife.. this is all open code we are talking about and Bryan is right.. At one point the GPL might have been needed but we are pissing on our victory parade by squabbling over details like this. We need to make the best systems we can and we spend way way too much time having lawyers argue what driver can and can not be shipped in Linux. For this I think FreeBSD has a better licence model. They didn't for a time but companies know that contributing upstream is less work than stealing code and trying to maintain huge patches now.

[oiaohm]

"insanely bound"? I like the CDDL. File based copy left that's compatible with proprietary code. It's basically MPL, whats not to like?

CDDL is not compatible with proprietary code in a lot of cases due to the same reason it not compatible with GPL or MPL. MPL v1.1 contains a key clause stripped from CDDL.

I think your wrong as the entire point of the CDDL is it can be combined with other licences.

Section 3.1 in every version of CDDL forbids mixing as it it states you can only use the terms of CDDL.

Mind you Oracle could use section 4.1 to release a new version of CDDL that has the 3.1 clause altered.

If you take some source code MIT licensed and put it inside a CDDL file by CDDL 3.1 it has to come CDDL. Under GPL/MPL it possible to tag that section as MIT license using the derivative work clauses that it was not a derivative work so not GPL/MPL.

It's also silly to to claim ZFS is a derivative work of Linux when it's clearly an Illumos technology.

That is the big problem. ZFS is design using Illumos/solaris kernel. Linux kernel is not that. So you have duplicated functionality and not proper integration with memory management and other things.

<b>They could NEVER have used the GPL for Solaris.</b>
This is bogus. Before CDDL ie before 2004 there were such thing as GPL source code drivers for Solaris. CDDL cause 3.1 saw those disappear as well once you were including CDDL licensed header files.

Derivative work clause if CDDL had it a CDDL driver on Linux could use the internal Linux subsystem parts as long as it kept those parts optional.

Please note MPL v1.1 that CDDL is based on contains the Derivative works clauses so MPLv 1.1 can be used in Multi Licensing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing

CDDL cannot be used in Multi-licensing without causing legal trouble in some countries because it missing clauses you need to-do it.

It would not take much of a revision to fix CDDL so it only as bad as MPLv 1.1.

CDDL is gutted MPLv 1.1 removing some very critical bits. Oracle does have the rights to fix CDDL no one else does.

[k1e0x]

CDDL is not compatible with proprietary code in a lot of cases due to the same reason it not compatible with GPL or MPL. MPL v1.1 contains a key clause stripped from CDDL.


Section 3.1 in every version of CDDL forbids mixing as it it states you can only use the terms of CDDL.

Mind you Oracle could use section 4.1 to release a new version of CDDL that has the 3.1 clause altered.

If you take some source code MIT licensed and put it inside a CDDL file by CDDL 3.1 it has to come CDDL. Under GPL/MPL it possible to tag that section as MIT license using the derivative work clauses that it was not a derivative work so not GPL/MPL.

Ya, it's file based. I don't understand why you'd want to do that.. the code compiles now under CDDL so I'm not sure what foreign code you'd want to add.

This is bogus. Before CDDL ie before 2004 there were such thing as GPL source code drivers for Solaris. CDDL cause 3.1 saw those disappear as well once you were including CDDL licensed header files.

I'm not talking about GPL drivers. I'm talking about proprietary scsi, network and video drivers in Solaris. Solaris was a heavy proprietary system, it's a miracle they were able to open source it at all. They needed to keep those drivers as what would OpenSolaris look like if you couldn't use it on Sun hardware. lol. GPL users know all about the problems with proprietary graphics drivers in kernel imagine if half your hardware was like that. So you can think that it was a conspiracy theory.. ~maybe~ it's true but.. this makes more sense. Sun sold really expensive hardware, they didn't care if you put Linux on it any more than IBM does.

Oracle does have the rights to fix CDDL no one else does.

No they really don't because they don't own the copyright for quite a bit of the OpenZFS code. If you look at the code you'll see copyright statements from Sun, Oracle, Delphix, Joyent, Datto, Nextentra and lots of individuals. They would all have to agree to relicence with Oracle and being that many of them are former Sun employees.. well.. you can imagine some over my dead body statements..

And.. you know the point is.. licence incompatibility discussions are really painful to the open source movement.. the enemy is proprietary code, hidden secret potentially dangerous code.. not each other. You think the CDDL is flawed, I think the GPL is flawed.. but it's all open.. and thats good.

[oiaohm]

Ya, it's file based. I don't understand why you'd want to do that.. the code compiles now under CDDL so I'm not sure what foreign code you'd want to add.

By law it turns out Macros in header files are classed as inserting code not protected as interface. So to fully exploit features of Linux kernel or any kernel not licensed under CDDL that with derivative work clauses with a driver written under CDDL you are stuffed.

I'm not talking about GPL drivers. I'm talking about proprietary scsi, network and video drivers in Solaris. Solaris was a heavy proprietary system, it's a miracle they were able to open source it at all. They needed to keep those drivers as what would OpenSolaris look like if you couldn't use it on Sun hardware. lol. GPL users know all about the problems with proprietary graphics drivers in kernel imagine if half your hardware was like that. So you can think that it was a conspiracy theory.. ~maybe~ it's true but.. this makes more sense. Sun sold really expensive hardware, they didn't care if you put Linux on it any more than IBM does.

Those proprietary drivers exist because Oracle/Sun uses 4.1 of CDDL.

• 4.1. New Versions.
  
  Sun Microsystems, Inc. is the initial license steward and may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Except as provided in Section 4.3, no one other than the license steward has the right to modify this License.

That is from 1.0 Of course oracle has updated that in 1.1 to have Oracle instead of Sun Microsystems.

So here closed source developers we will give you a SDK under X special sub version of CDDL that says you don't have to obey 3.1 and we give you that if you let us vet your driver.

No they really don't because they don't own the copyright for quite a bit of the OpenZFS code. If you look at the code you'll see copyright statements from Sun, Oracle, Delphix, Joyent, Datto, Nextentra and lots of individuals. They would all have to agree to relicence with Oracle and being that many of them are former Sun employees.. well.. you can imagine some over my dead body statements..

All those parties have agreed to 4.1 by using CDDL. So Oracle could say that the new version of CDDL is GPL and that would be instantly able to re-license the complete thing. Basically you have not read the CDDL license using it you have given absolute control of License to Sun at first then Oracle.

So legally over my dead body statements with CDDL would be worth nothing because the power to re-license has already been given.

GPL you could remove the or latter clause so limiting FSF control.

Remember CDDL is design that Sun could change their mind like release a new version of CDDL that allowed them to take all CDDL works closed source.

So a single stroke of a pen in Oracle legal department could end the incompatibilities between CDDL and GPL also a single stroke of a pen in Oracle could allow them to take something under CDDL license make it closed source and extend it and there is nothing those who worked on the CDDL project could do anything about it.

So like it or not almost all the work on OpenZFS basically owns to Oracle as they have absolute control over how it licensed. Yes standing behind CDDL for patent protection comes at a hell of a price.

[ormaaj]

It would be an odd situation if Oracle relicensed to the GPL itself because Oracle's version of ZFS would then definitely be rejected by all non-Linux OSes that want to avoid that. If OpenZFS follows suit and switched to the GPL to pull in Oracle code, then OpenZFS would need to be forked to maintain a CDDL version which will still have no option to relicense even if that were desired. Those that want OpenZFS features on Linux will still need to patch their kernels with the CDDL version which can't include code from either the GPL'd Oracle Solaris version or from Linux.

So switching to the GPL doesn't really do much to change the present situation. There would still be two separate versions of ZFS that can't borrow from one another. All it would do is allow putting Oracle's ZFS into Linux, assuming anybody wants that.

Ideally Oracle would chose a nonviral GPL-compatible license that's palatable to everyone presently using CDDL... but yeah fat chance of anything happening at all.

[oiaohm]

It would be an odd situation if Oracle relicensed to the GPL itself because Oracle's version of ZFS would then definitely be rejected by all non-Linux OSes that want to avoid that. If OpenZFS follows suit and switched to the GPL to pull in Oracle code, then OpenZFS would need to be forked to maintain a CDDL version which will still have no option to relicense even if that were desired. Those that want OpenZFS features on Linux will still need to patch their kernels with the CDDL version which can't include code from either the GPL'd Oracle Solaris version or from Linux.

Depends how Oracle re-licensed to GPL. If Oracle stated that GPL was the next version of CDDL fork to maintain CDDL comes next to impossible.
4.2. Effect of New Versions.
Is a good read. So what happens is you would face a libreoffice vs openoffice fork. This clause is forwards portable so someone forks and releases under the new version of CDDL no matter what it is you have no way back.

https://oss.oracle.com/licenses/CDDL+GPL-1.1

ormaaj this here is the o my god problem. If this hybrid is fixed so it can in fact work for Linux if made CDDL 1.2. So the threat of Oracle possible stroke of pen converting to GPL is not just theory you can see Oracle legal department pondering with the CDL+GPL-.1.1 license.

Something to remember here does Oracle in fact make any money from those other operating systems?

I would say Oracle doing a non-viral license is unlikely. But Oracle releasing a new version of CDDL that turns it into GPL is on the cards. Question is does oracle have anything that is license under CDDL they need to remain CDDL for them to make profit? CDDL being in Oracles hands put you in a very horible location if CDDL has no profit gain to Oracle any more and is only a hindrance so conversion to some other license comes likely.

[TheBlackCat]

It would be an odd situation if Oracle relicensed to the GPL itself because Oracle's version of ZFS would then definitely be rejected by all non-Linux OSes that want to avoid that. If OpenZFS follows suit and switched to the GPL to pull in Oracle code, then OpenZFS would need to be forked to maintain a CDDL version which will still have no option to relicense even if that were desired. Those that want OpenZFS features on Linux will still need to patch their kernels with the CDDL version which can't include code from either the GPL'd Oracle Solaris version or from Linux.

So switching to the GPL doesn't really do much to change the present situation. There would still be two separate versions of ZFS that can't borrow from one another. All it would do is allow putting Oracle's ZFS into Linux, assuming anybody wants that.

Ideally Oracle would chose a nonviral GPL-compatible license that's palatable to everyone presently using CDDL... but yeah fat chance of anything happening at all.

Or they could just offer it under multiple licenses.

[oiaohm]

Or they could just offer it under multiple licenses.

Multiple Licenses still require fixing CDDL section 3.1 so it does not cause issues in different companies legal departments. Careful legal departments like it written clear that something is allowed.