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

[Panda_Wrist]

Michael Unapproved post

[smitty3268]

Is getting sued by Oracle on the list?

That won't happen until somebody making money starts using it. Nothing for them to gain by going after Ubuntu, they'll be hoping that use there spreads to Red Hat and others where they can then cash in.

[Guest]

Why would they? The CDDL is fine with GPL. It's GPL that isn't fine with CDDL.

Look at it this way (I'm not a lawyer). Add MIT code to a GPL project, that code then conforms to pretending to be GPL while in that project. So basically it's still all GPL. You can then remove that MIT code and put it in another project and that MIT code will just conform to whatever license that the new project has. The CDDL just wants to keep it's license when added to other code. The GPL does not like that. I love the GPL, our open source world would not be where it is today without it, but it is a very VERY restrictive license. This is why I hate it when people call the GPL the freedom license.

Where as I'm disappointed that Torvalds hasn't decided to put his projects under the GNU umbrella, and now we live in a dystopia full of tivo boxes and ARM SoCs that had a single proprietary kernel release to run Android and get disposed of by the time the next update comes. GPL gives freedom, and it also enforces it by making sure it's hard to abuse software licensed under it.

[k1e0x]

Why would they? The CDDL is fine with GPL. It's GPL that isn't fine with CDDL.

Look at it this way (I'm not a lawyer). Add MIT code to a GPL project, that code then conforms to pretending to be GPL while in that project. So basically it's still all GPL. You can then remove that MIT code and put it in another project and that MIT code will just conform to whatever license that the new project has. The CDDL just wants to keep it's license when added to other code. The GPL does not like that. I love the GPL, our open source world would not be where it is today without it, but it is a very VERY restrictive license. This is why I hate it when people call the GPL the freedom license.

MPL/CDDL do the same thing without restricting the developer.
BSD is the freedom license.. such as the freedom to make a commercial product and sell it for (gasp) money.

[jo-erlend]

MPL/CDDL do the same thing without restricting the developer.
BSD is the freedom license.. such as the freedom to make a commercial product and sell it for (gasp) money.

GPL is specifically designed for commercial software. That's why it's not permissive. It protects the developer without punishing users. The idea that you must punish users if you want to sell software, is crazy.

[Buntolo]

I see there are certain parts slated for 20.04, does this mean it will be available for root partition for next LTS?

[k1e0x]

GPL is specifically designed for commercial software. That's why it's not permissive. It protects the developer without punishing users. The idea that you must punish users if you want to sell software, is crazy.

Since when? How does preventing Linux from having a industry leading file system technology "help" the users? That is just some bullshit propaganda the GNU says.

It blows my mind that on the one hand a Linux user can talk about the purity of the GPL and the evils of commercial software but on the other they have no problem with "open source friend" Microsoft turning the Linux OS into a run time layer that you use on Windows. Stop drinking the Koolaid.

Freedom does not equal restrictions. Personally I like the MPL weak copyleft model (if you ship it you must release the code, thats it.) The GNU GPL really isn't that great.

[Britoid]

Where as I'm disappointed that Torvalds hasn't decided to put his projects under the GNU umbrella, and now we live in a dystopia full of tivo boxes and ARM SoCs that had a single proprietary kernel release to run Android and get disposed of by the time the next update comes. GPL gives freedom, and it also enforces it by making sure it's hard to abuse software licensed under it.

Ha, if Linux was under the GNU/GPL3 umbrella do you really think all those devices would be running Linux?

They wouldn't, they'd just choose something else and it would be of an even worse situtation.

[jo-erlend]

Since when? How does preventing Linux from having a industry leading file system technology "help" the users? That is just some bullshit propaganda the GNU says.

It blows my mind that on the one hand a Linux user can talk about the purity of the GPL and the evils of commercial software but on the other they have no problem with "open source friend" Microsoft turning the Linux OS into a run time layer that you use on Windows. Stop drinking the Koolaid.

Freedom does not equal restrictions. Personally I like the MPL weak copyleft model (if you ship it you must release the code, thats it.) The GNU GPL really isn't that great.

I don't know anyone who's talking about the evils of commercial software. GNU certainly does not; they advocate commercial software.

The GPL does not exist to help users, as you put it. It exists to protect the product and developer without _hurting_ users. This is the point of the license. It allows you to create a commercial product and sell it for a profit without allowing your product to be taken over by a hostile entity, as happened with Wine, if you remember and why they moved to the GPL.

If you don't care how your product is being used and have no business to protect, then you can just use a permissive license. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a very bad idea if you're a small business trying to sell software, however, because then a more powerful company can just take your product, expand on it faster than you can, take your user base and close the source. No more business for you.

[starshipeleven]

Why would they?

You know that Oracle does have developers contributing to Linux kernel, right?

They can very well start suing the hell out of Canonical (and anyone else smaller than themselves) for alleged "GPL violations" at the drop of a hat.