Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 19.10's ZFS TODO List Goes Public - A Lot To Of Work Left

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

  • #31
    Lets look at it a different way. Oracle owns ZFS. They also have a Linux distro. They don't ship ZFS with their distro because the linux kernel gpl might feel violated. If they would ship it, everyone else could sue Oracle.

    If anything Oracle is probably hoping nothing happens to Cannoical and then starts shipping zfs as well.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Panda_Wrist View Post
      When you look at it that way, couldn't anybody that contributes to the Linux kernel sue?
      Yes, when we talk of suing it's usually implied that it is a company that is involved in Linux kernel development.

      Oracles ZFS license isn't being violated. The Linux kernel license "is".
      Oracle is commonly evoked because doing frivolous lawsuits to get billions is their jam.

      Did you follow the whole thing about Oracle suing Google because they used the same function names in their Android Java VM, and somehow that hurt Oracle's feelings so they asked for like ten billion dollars for that?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Panda_Wrist View Post
        Lets look at it a different way. Oracle owns ZFS. They also have a Linux distro. They don't ship ZFS with their distro because the linux kernel gpl might feel violated. If they would ship it, everyone else could sue Oracle.
        Yes. This is another good indicator that maybe it's not a great idea to do at the large scales Oracle operates at. Oracle isn't the only one known for omnomnomnomming on other companies through lawsuits.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
          "The CDDL was designed to KILL LINUX OMG Panic!"
          Quit this theater and understand the time period when this all happened.

          It was created specifically to be incompatible with the GPL because Solaris at the time was directly competing with Linux.

          Yes, the Unix Wars were a thing back then, when all Unixes were a shitfest of incompatibility and competition so that even the fucking base filesystem UFS was extended by proprietary crap.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post

            In this case, I can't care less about what the license is like, it can conform to all 4 freedoms for all I care. The issue is that it's not compatible with GNU GPL.

            I'm also cheering for Oracle to step in and get people who push this backwards idea into court. This is nothing but a GPL violation, and I do not tolerate those. I'm willing to side with Oracle on this one, because if they do what they should, they'll be defending GNU's interests of enforcing GPL.
            Their (GPL/CDDL) only difference is in how the build systems are required to be set up. CDDL can allow closed source build tools and scripts. Other than that, the licenses have the same requirements. That means that provided that the CDDL code is setup in a manner that is compliant under the GPL then that code can be considered to be GPL compatible. From there if some party were to take it to court then that party would have to show a "theory to harm" and the only party that could do that would be Oracle suing the ZoL devs over ZFS harming BTRFS...which is barely tangible since Oracle has a hand in both and that both are next generation file systems.

            Relevant part of the GPL:
            These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
            Relevant part of the CDDL:
            You may distribute the Executable form of the Covered Software under the terms of this License or under the terms of a license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this License, provided that You are in compliance with the terms of this License and that the license for the Executable form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients rights in the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License.
            Hmm, so when ZFS is compiled to an executable form it can be re-licensed as GPL as long as the source code follows GPL requirements (which ZoL does)...that's very interesting and very relevant.

            Basically, if the build scripts are open source and compliant with GPL, regardless of the license a project uses, and that the CDDL code itself is open source to show one isn't limiting or harming ZFS once it is compiled and in an executable from, then there is no incompatibility simple because one can license the resulting binaries as GPL since that is 100% allowed by the CDDL license. That's also why there are thousands of parts of the kernel under BSD and MIT licenses...once compiled they turn into GPL...just like how ZoL can and should.

            If it were to actually go to court, the person or party defending the GPL would be wasting their time and money with a losing argument by those two bolded sections from each license.

            It's also very funny and ironic that the "theory of harm" that the GPL party would have to prove would backfire on them because the CDDL allows the licensee to show how they're being harmed. Since the GPL exports change actively harms ZFS, the ZoL devs actually have more of a chance to win.

            Thank You for giving ZoL damn near all the ammo they'll need for court by doing the GPL export stuff and specifically mentioning ZFS as one of the reasons in the comments and discussions, Linux Kernel Devs.

            At least now we can switch from an "exports" patch to a "license change upon compile" patch and know that we're following both of the licenses to the letter in a manner that doesn't screw ZFS and allows distributions to distribute ZFS without any risk at all.
            Last edited by skeevy420; 06-05-2019, 03:14 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Panda_Wrist View Post

              When you look at it that way, couldn't anybody that contributes to the Linux kernel sue? It might be a "GPL violation" but it is not a CDDL violation. Oracles ZFS license isn't being violated. The Linux kernel license "is".
              Not if the project that is using CDDL has an open source build system. If the build system is open source then all requirements of the GPL are being followed. From there the CDDL allows the resulting compiled binary to be re-licensed as GPL. The GPL is not being violated at all.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                The worst part of the whole ZoL situation is how the kernel devs aren't willing to discuss alternatives and compromises with the ZoL devs
                There is nothing to discuss.

                Relicensing now is a huge clusterfuck and won't defuse the legal issues because it's done on shaky grounds (someone is relicensing stuff they don't own).

                Reenabling stuff for an external module is something they should not do, as that's the whole point of GPL extensions, might as well drop the whole concept alltogether.

                There is no compromise, because there is simply nothing that can be done, life isn't fair, deal with it.

                At this point I'm hoping that Microsoft will buy Oracle just to re-license ZFS
                Even ignoring for a second the stupendous amount of money that they would need to pay for that (Oracle is not Sun kiddo, the size difference is relevant), it won't do shit. The ZoL codebase has evolved significantly from the proprietary ZFS that Oracle owns.

                Think about it -- Buying Oracle for ZFS would solve a lot of Microsoft's problems.
                They would be FAR, FAR better off just migrating their shit (.net, powershell, their GUIs and stuff, whatever) on FreeBSD, making WinBSD Server, and get basically everything for free.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

                  Not if the project that is using CDDL has an open source build system. If the build system is open source then all requirements of the GPL are being followed. From there the CDDL allows the resulting compiled binary to be re-licensed as GPL. The GPL is not being violated at all.
                  That's why I wrote " might be " and had quotation marks around gpl violation. Because some people and the gpl feel that it is. Wether it is or not a violation ( I don't think it is), I'm going to continue using zfs on linux.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                    The worst part of the whole ZoL situation is how the kernel devs aren't willing to discuss alternatives and compromises with the ZoL devs and how most of the kernel dev comments come off as really hostile and negative.

                    ZoL -- What if we undertook a project to rewrite it so it's 100% GPL?
                    KD -- **Cricket Noises**

                    ZoL -- Can you reenable that feature you just disabled since you've made exceptions for modules in the past?
                    KD -- Not this time, not for you.

                    ZoL -- So is there any way we can work together to figure out a compromise?
                    KD -- **Cricket Noises**

                    At this point I'm hoping that Microsoft will buy Oracle just to re-license ZFS...probably easier and cheaper than WinFS at this point...I mean, NTFS just sucks, Microsoft/Windows needs something better than what Linux offers if they really want to compete in the server/data storage market, and Oracle is doing a really shitty job with the best solution around.

                    Think about it -- Buying Oracle for ZFS would solve a lot of Microsoft's problems.
                    This post is actually super on point. Linux could have a serious advantage over Microsoft here and *could* have had it for the past decade. Instead they have been of messing around with (broken) BTRFS and license squabbles that may or may not exist. *This* is why FreeBSD is a thing.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post

                      In this case, I can't care less about what the license is like, it can conform to all 4 freedoms for all I care. The issue is that it's not compatible with GNU GPL.

                      I'm also cheering for Oracle to step in and get people who push this backwards idea into court. This is nothing but a GPL violation, and I do not tolerate those. I'm willing to side with Oracle on this one, because if they do what they should, they'll be defending GNU's interests of enforcing GPL.
                      So what you're saying is you don't care that the code is good or the license is acceptable, free and open source (more so than Linux itself really).. and you would *like* to see that technology be destroyed in order to protect the GPL for.. reasons... do you not realize why I liken you to a religious nut job?
                      Last edited by k1e0x; 06-05-2019, 03:40 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X