ZFS On Linux Has Figured Out A Way To Restore SIMD Support On Linux 5.0+

[k1e0x]

(propagandist stuff)

You realize law is a fabrication right? It's subject to the will of those in power.

And you're missing the big point. The viral nature of the GPL. (but you probably think that is great.. "forces" people to your approved ideas right? freedom bad. control good.)

But you know.. your head is so far away from the real world.. : shrug : You are right about one thing tho.. nothing good every happens to anyone in a court room. (winner and loser both lose)

I think you're kind of a dangerous person because you'd justify tyranny.. you seem to do it internally.. you maybe want to think about your rationale for doing so.

[audir8]

Patents and FPU changing to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL for OOT is not separate and that the problem. To make FPU code in Linux kernel Preempt_RT compatible in kernel space required using functionality that is under IBM and Vmware patents and a few other parties, So a patent nightmare to license to say the least most of those are license for use in GPLv2 with Linus exception for userspace code works only. This is why the change from EXPORT_SYMBOL to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and this is why in the case bypassing it not a highly good idea because this is walking straight into patent infringement by using patents functionality you don't have a license if your code is not GPL. If the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL in the Linux kernel patent reason happens to own to your company then you can breach it but you better be very sure its not mixed up with other parties patented techs. So since the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL version of FPU protection is now a patent thicket ZFS need to go around by developing own solution or make their code GPL properly.

Could the old FPU code maintained going forwards with the integration of Preempt_RT the answer is again no. So no point offering it to the ZFS of Linux developer also it was impossible to offer as I will state next..

No proof for any of this means it's more FUD you've made from thin air.

Linus Torvalds cannot give something he legally cannot give.

Read the whole link and try to understand it. https://www.softwarefreedom.org/reso...rnel-cddl.html Here is the statement Linus made:

Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew filesystem module: a standard filesystem that really wasn't written for Linux in the first place, and just implements a UNIX filesystem. Is that derived just because it got ported to Linux that had a reasonably similar VFS interface to what other UNIXes did? Personally, I didn't feel that I could make that judgment call. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it clearly is a gray area.

Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to tell the AFS guys so.

The exact same apples-to-apples logic applies to ZFS, again, before KAFS existed. If such a statement was made about ZFS, maintainers wouldn't be taking out "unused in-tree" code. I don't know what to call Linus' final statement something other than a non-derivative GPL exception for OpenAFS.

I really don't mean to be pedantic, but the Linux does have GPL exceptions that are explicit: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tr...SES/exceptions. It also lists the CDDL here: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/bl.../dual/CDDL-1.0 which at the top says this:

Usage-Guide:
Do NOT use. The CDDL-1.0 is not GPL2 compatible. It may only be used for dual-licensed files where the other license is GPL2 compatible.
If you end up using this it MUST be used together with a GPL2 compatible license using "OR".
To use the Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 put the following SPDX tag/value pair into a comment according to the placement guidelines in the licensing rules documentation:
SPDX-License-Identifier: ($GPL-COMPATIBLE-ID OR CDDL-1.0)

So, code has to be dual-licensed, which ZFS isn't, understood. But, there is no such listing for the IBM PL in https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tr.../LICENSES/dual. This notice also doesn't mention non-derivative works where dual licensing might not be required. The Linux syscall note does mention GPL's "derived work" clause doesn't apply: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/bl...x-syscall-note

The FSF, SFC and SFLC have pages on GPL enforcement guidelines: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles and https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-c...rinciples.html and https://www.softwarefreedom.org/reso...nce_2d_ed.html but where the OpenAFS case has had a maintained (yet mostly undocumented) unique legal standing for a while now, there are no "guidelines" to stop the virality of the GPL even when significant non-derivative works exist outside the main tree, and are legally compatible with the GPL in every other way like ZFS and AFS is. Kernel devs can't hide behind "OOT" and being "GPL2 in kernel space" for this case. ZFS deserves the same legal review which AFS got, and it's still SFLC/debian/ubuntu vs SFC/maintainers like I said before. Linus and gkh have just repeatedly weighed in on the SFC's side.

License proliferation is license proliferation in this case, IBM PL or CDDL. If Oracle wanted they could make a GPL KZFS like KAFS, but this shouldn't be required. I agree with the SFLC and with how SFC described Debian's ZFS integration, if there is a <ZFS user> vs. Oracle like Google vs. Oracle it's a totally different issue. Oracle is a litigious company especially after acquiring SUN.

[oiaohm]

You realize law is a fabrication right? It's subject to the will of those in power.

True laws are created by those in power. Human or animal. In side the current model we have very strict limitations.

And you're missing the big point. The viral nature of the GPL. (but you probably think that is great.. "forces" people to your approved ideas right? freedom bad. control good.)

Being a GPL compatible license does not mean it has to have the viral nature.
1) Means the license does not have restricts like you must advertise our product or provide support or any other stack of you will do stuff for us. GPL has 1 restrict you will release the source code under the same license. There are many other restrictions that effect end users.
2)If license has a patent declaration it in fact has to be correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License

Please note I mentioned Apache 2.0 this license does not contain viral nature but is GPL compatible so its not going to be able to be used by someone down the track to come after end users..

But you know.. your head is so far away from the real world.. : shrug : You are right about one thing tho.. nothing good every happens to anyone in a court room. (winner and loser both lose)

A license with defective clauses normally equals someone end up in court and losing because of it. It is important that license you use on your projects is not flawed because otherwise sooner or latter someone is going to pay for that flaw in court.

The viral nature of GPL is about the only section of it that is disputed in court fairly much everything else is cut and dried rulings..

I think you're kind of a dangerous person because you'd justify tyranny.. you seem to do it internally.. you maybe want to think about your rationale for doing so.

The problem here is freedom and the law are not really the same thing. The human made laws is always a form of tyranny as it always takes away freedoms.

It very important to make sure that anything you using that is based in the tyranny system of law is not allowing more tyranny.

IBM Public license says you give it to a friend you are liable to provide them with support to use it that not particularly friendly..

CDDL contains a clause where upstream can say hey you cannot use X old version because we have deleted it and if you do we will sue you for patent infringement. CDDL one is high hazard particularly for a file system. Lets just say you have your data stored in ZFS and someone upstream does that now your discs are not legally accessible. Fun of the CDDL license and copyright law is they could delete the code out the CDDL work then release that under a closed source work and ask you to pay a arm and a leg to access your data. Yes fun part of CDDL lack of viral and allowance in binary works under a different license they can do this without rewriting a single bit of code.

k1e0x GPL viral nature tyranny where developers must release source code is not even close to the tyranny hiding in the CDDL license. GPL one does not result in end users using something then being able to held over a barrel unable to access their own data legally.

I see a lot of people upset about GPL yet then make out CDDL is fine. There is no way in hell I will be recommending a CDDL licensed file system the license is not suitable. CDDL was design so SUN could open source then close source in future and take back control by patents. CDDL is a india giver license..

IBM Public License I can kind of live with because its not going to trap people out of their data legally.

Yes Linux kernel supporting OOT/binary drivers simply would make it a lot simpler for a third party to sabotage ZFS On Linux this way and profit.

k1e0x the choice between GPL and CDDL is who will be effected by tyranny both contain a viral nature. GPL copyright viral generated tyranny(copyleft) effects developers and distributors but end users are not pulled into any dispute there. CDDL patent generated viral tyranny effects end users as they can be held over a barrel as those with patents let lose on top of effecting distributors and developers. Lot of ways CDDL patent tyranny is slowed down while software patent laws are being fort over. Yes you have less legal defence option in a patent court than a copyright court.

Lot have this anti GPL bent totally missing there are licenses like CDDL that make GPL look angelic.

k1e0x I am not 100 percent pro GPL. But if I had to choose between GPL and CDDL I would always choose GPL.

If someone wanted a license without a copyleft I would be recommend Apache 2.0 again proper patent grant so keeping people out the patent courts with disputes restricted to developers and distributors so end users are left out of the mess.

Yes GPL viral nature is smart. Since source code has to be release under the GPL license if it infringing end users cannot be attacked because they are not the party in fact breaking the license.

k1e0x there are two parties to consider developers and end users you have been only really considering the tyranny on developers totally missing the tyranny on end users particular license let lose. There are a lot more end users than developers..