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

[brent]

If anyone doesn't agree with the terms of Linux licensing, they are free to use something else (and there are several alternatives). The fact that even with all the alternatives people still want to use Linux and ZFS, it means that they see many advantages in Linux. Linux kernel under GPLv2 existed long before ZFS was open-sourced. If you want to participate with the entrenched standard, you have to follow their rules. So the onus is on ZFS to be made GPLv2-compatible. I can't see why so many people find this hard to understand.

Unfortunately that's close to impossible. ZFS (ZoL) has many, many authors and it's not really feasible to relicense it. Sury, it was a shit move by Sun to make CDDL incompatible to GPL on purpose, but people that want to use it can't change that. And unfortunately, there is no alternative to ZFS available either.

Again, to repeat for everyone that seems to need to hear it multiple times; if you don't agree with how Linux works, DON'T USE IT. Why waste time coming here and bitching about it. Go use Windows, one of the BSD's, etc. Why make life harder for yourself??

The world isn't that black and white.

[k1e0x]

*If* Sun made the CDDL to be incompatible.. They did a really poor job. Lol

https://ubuntu.com/blog/zfs-licensing-and-linux

[Space Heater]

*If* Sun made the CDDL to be incompatible.. They did a really poor job. Lol

https://ubuntu.com/blog/zfs-licensing-and-linux

Danese Cooper, the person who wrote the CDDL, has stated multiple times that Sun demanded it be made incompatible with the GPLv2 so that Linux could not incorporate the key technologies of Solaris 10 - ZFS, Dtrace, mdb, etc.

I pleaded with Sun to use a BSD family license or the GPL itself and they would consider neither *because* that would have allowed D-Trace to end up in Linux.

[cbdougla]

It would be particularly interesting (to me to at least) see a comparison of ZFS on Linux vs BSD with and without hardware acceleration on Linux.

I'll look into doing this myself.

Any suggestions on what benchmarks to run?

[k1e0x]

Well it isn't. Whoever Dainese is got their way. Ubuntu's review (and others) is a clear common sense analysis not hype fud or rumors.

And that is great for Linux. It puts Linux on the forefront of filesystem technologys and thank God we beat Microsoft to the punch. 🙂

[Guest]

Don't worry: kernel devs will soon hide even more functions under GPL and your f*ckery will never cease.

I hope that's what kernel developers intend to do. GPL is intended to be a tool for preventing abuse, and it should be used as such.

[audir8]

I hope that's what kernel developers intend to do. GPL is intended to be a tool for preventing abuse, and it should be used as such.

Working with another accepted OSI license in a reasonable way isn't abuse.

The kernel developers should grant ZFS an exception like AFS or the Nvidia driver.

Sun made mistakes, it's executives weren't perfect, but they did end up doing more right than wrong for open source. https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/01/6074-2/

[finalzone]

k1e0x
Danese Cooper is the CDDL license author who knows what he is talking about having worked with SUN.

[k1e0x]

finalzone and..? He/she sounds like a bad lawyer if they wrote the licence because clearly you can't define ZoL as a derivative works of Linux. 🙂 - and you know if you disagree call the licence police because we are doing this. You can thank us later.

[skeevy420]

finalzone and..? He/she sounds like a bad lawyer if they wrote the licence because clearly you can't define ZoL as a derivative works of Linux. 🙂 - and you know if you disagree call the licence police because we are doing this. You can thank us later.

Not to mention that if one reads the licenses, the issues are the derivative works part and the Ubuntu legal review pretty much clears that up and the only other issue is that the CDDL allows using closed-source build systems; when CDDL projects use open-source build systems they're compliant with all the GPL requirements.

Moreover, the CDDL allows relicensing a project once compiled so it could, in theory, be set up in a way that it's CDDL in source-form and it gets converted to the GPL once compiled. It would be really interesting if a major distribution went that route to circumvent the GPL exports.