ZFS On Linux 0.8.1 Brings Many Fixes, Linux 5.2 Compatibility Bits

[tildearrow]

I hope Oracle converts ZFS to GPL. The CDDL isn't even a waste of time, it's just harmful.

Fixed, sort of.

[Guest]

Fixed, sort of.

I don't trust Oracle, and I don't want the kernel to be tainted by their work. It's a company known for filing silly lawsuits, and I don't think it's a good idea to give them a reason to possibly sue someone.

[DanL]

I don't trust Oracle, and I don't want the kernel to be tainted by their work.

ZoL isn't in the kernel, so what are you fussing about?

[skeevy420]

Fixed, sort of.

Not really, CDDL and GPL are compliant provided CDDL is following all the GPL requirements. The gist of it is CDDL allows closed-source build tools like ICC to be used and the GPL doesn't; that's the one real incompatibility between them), but if the CDDL project uses all open source tools for everything then all the provisions of the GPL are being followed and that makes them compatible.

Moreover, CDDL allows a project to change the license when the code is compiled so ZoL could, in theory, have it set up in a manner where the license gets changed to a more compatible license like MIT or BSD once in binary/compiled form, though that shouldn't be necessary due to ZoL being 100% open source which makes it technically compliant with the GPLv2...and there's nothing anyone could do about that because it's part of the CDDL.

At this point in time, anybody still fussing over ZoL, CDDL, and the GPL are just showing that they haven't researched this topic in-depth, that they haven't even read the licenses, or that they're just repeating propaganda because they lack critical thinking skills to do tasks like researching and comprehensive reading.

I'd love it if they went to court at this point in time. Linux kernel devs have been outwardly hostile towards ZoL with their comments, have implemented blockers to hinder its performance, and those comments and blockers give ZoL more defense in court since the CDDL has a clause where if another project intentionally cripples the CDDL project's performance or integrity, then the blocking project is in the wrong -- that 100% describes the ZoL situation once v5.0 came out and the Kernel Devs decided not to make a ZoL exception like they've done for other file system licenses in the past combined with their attitude about it all.

Oracle won't sue because it'll legitimize ZoL while simultaneously screwing themselves and their closed-source ZFS and setting a license precedent (you don't legitimize your only real competition). Linux Devs won't sue because they're in the wrong and don't want to risk a license precedent. No one will sue because ZoL is 100% in the right and not doing anything wrong and, because of that, suing risks opening up a big can of worms.

[skeevy420]

Sigh...that phoronix filter just loves me in the morning...

[k1e0x]

Stop you have a mistake.

MD, LVM and ext4/xfs are used in solutions that are used as alternatives to NetAPP and ZFS like https://stratis-storage.github.io/faq/. Please note I did not type EMC.
https://germany.emc.com/collateral/w...tdi-vnx-wp.pdf
EMC in fact backs using xfs in a lot of their configurations. EMC provides the block device and volume management side integration into LVM.


So if ZFS competes with EMC it has to compete in part with the xfs file system because the xfs file system is part of EMC solutions.

Correct.. sort of.

ZFS gives you a lot of ability to implement the full stack on your own (tho you may want a cluster FS on top of an array of block devices) In the open source world it's lacking good tooling and UI's with the exception of FreeNAS that is.. getting better.. but still not enterprise. Again I mentioned the commercial products before that are based on it that are enterprise ready ZFS solutions.

People can cobble together things into a product and that's been done for ages.. Such as NetApp uses and old forked version of FreeBSD with UFS. With ZFS much more of the stack is integrated and works with other systems since it's all open.

[Guest]

ZoL isn't in the kernel, so what are you fussing about?

The problem is that you're linking in non-GPL code, which isn't permitted by GNU GPL.

[ehansin]

I wanted to add, my early post in this thread asking if Linux has anything else comparable was meant kind of as a poke, but equally so a legitimate question. I'm getting deeper and deeper into file storage stuff, and I want to learn. Obviously there are a lot of opinions, and one thing I have learned in the Phoronix forums is that I need to use my critical thinking skills to come to my own conclusions. Anyway, I have learned a bit here and that is helpful.

[numacross]

I wanted to add, my early post in this thread asking if Linux has anything else comparable was meant kind of as a poke, but equally so a legitimate question. I'm getting deeper and deeper into file storage stuff, and I want to learn. Obviously there are a lot of opinions, and one thing I have learned in the Phoronix forums is that I need to use my critical thinking skills to come to my own conclusions. Anyway, I have learned a bit here and that is helpful.

You might be interested in this comparison then

[starshipeleven]

Fixed, sort of.

That's pointless, their own proprietary ZFS has diverged significantly from the ZoL codebase.