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

[k1e0x]

Despite them being compatible.. As Ubuntu rightly asserts. There won't even be a legal battle on this because it's tort law and tort law has to show harm. Since both licences have the same effective requirement it's almost impossible to show harm from one to the other. So long as the code is open it can apply to both. A judge/jury isn't going to see a difference in the effect.. They are going to see technicalities. The spirit is the same of both.

The difference is only the CDDL applies to files not "works" and is more premisive than thr GPL

[oiaohm]

Despite them being compatible.. As Ubuntu rightly asserts. There won't even be a legal battle on this because it's tort law and tort law has to show harm. Since both licences have the same effective requirement it's almost impossible to show harm from one to the other. So long as the code is open it can apply to both. A judge/jury isn't going to see a difference in the effect.. They are going to see technicalities. The spirit is the same of both.

The difference is only the CDDL applies to files not "works" and is more premisive than thr GPL

There is one problem patents. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/0...p_zfs_dismiss/

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/CDDL_and_patents There is no patent grant as part of CDDL.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2_and_p...ant:_section_6 GPLv2 has a unconditional patent grant. How to infringe on netapps patent agreement with Oracle that one is.

Basically about time you reconsider you stand there are a few other key differences with CDDL vs GPL as well all that can cause damaged.

Sorry CDDL and GPLv2 are not compatible and its really simple to show harm by illegally granting patent license if a CDDL work gets GPLv2 applied. There are other key differences between the two that can also trigger the tort law.

Ubuntu argued that ZoL falls under not at “derivative work” so not GPLv2 effected. As long as this is true CDDL and GPL code should not cross.

[k1e0x]

Nobody wants to cross them. ZoL wanted to do a full rewrite under GPL2 and the Linux team ignored them. It's bullshit. It like you people don't want nice things.

All we want is a module we can install we don't care if we are in tree ever. We want the same thing you happily give to Nvidia (who are totally evil, hypocrites)

[k1e0x]

oiaohm In the end it won't even matter tho.. Redhat (read IBM) is slowly turning Linux into a pile of crap remicent of windows. FreeBSD is the new Linux and they have no problem adopting great technology and have a sane licence. A real open source non viral licence. So you know have fun with Microsoft and Google turing your OS into a run time library.

[oiaohm]

Nobody wants to cross them. ZoL wanted to do a full rewrite under GPL2 and the Linux team ignored them.

No the Linux developers did not ignore them they asked as question about the fact they did not have patent coverage.

https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/8314#issue-401023153

This would risk losing the patent grants afforded to us by the CDDL

Lead developer here of Zfs On Linux miss read what CDDL has done. CDDL does not contain a patent grant. So those with patents can wait for large enough usage then come out the wood work with ZFS. OIN does not cover ZFS stuff.

Please note they did not try for a full rewrite in GPLv2 at all. "The dual licensed version" so CDDL and GPL without resolving the patent problem of course is not going to fly.

Sorry ZoL has not wanted todo a full clean rewrite as required to avoid some of the patent hell.

All we want is a module we can install we don't care if we are in tree ever. We want the same thing you happily give to Nvidia (who are totally evil, hypocrites)

NPU DMA code has recently been ripped out from under Nvidia but there is a long list of Linux kernel features that have disappeared that Nvidia have had to re-code their modules to cope.

Out of tree this is what happens. ZoL treatment is not special.

oiaohm In the end it won't even matter tho.. Redhat (read IBM) is slowly turning Linux into a pile of crap remicent of windows. FreeBSD is the new Linux and they have no problem adopting great technology and have a sane licence. A real open source non viral licence. So you know have fun with Microsoft and Google turing your OS into a run time library.

Forget trying to provoke me. I don't give a rats about this. Reality like it or not ZFS CDDL license does not promise that some one cannot turn around and patent sue you at any time even if they submitted the code to ZoL..

When all super computers are running Linux. Freebsd market share is dropping to be in most cases less than a rounding error.

Real open source has a license where someone cannot walk up and say hey you have been using this software for 18 years now please pay me for those past 18 years with interest. This is exactly how the patent terms in CDDL are.

[k1e0x]

oiaohm their is no patent issue with ZFS under the CDDL. (a different licence maybe)

You know the funny part.. I was just like you 10 years ago. I've been using Linux almost since it's release in the early 90's. I can see the writing on the wall for it. FreeBSD is today what Linux use to be. Highly configurable, open, simple and fast.

I regret ever supporting the GPL or the GNU they are bad for the software industry on the whole. Freedom does not come with a list of restrictions on what you can use and how you use it and only a crazy person. (Stallman) would ever want all software to conform to his idea.

[audir8]

1) oiaohm is a troll

2) Redhat made KAFS because it had it's own requirements at the time and it can be ignored for all purposes of this conversation. OpenAFS is still out of tree, still maintained with a IBM license, and uses GPL'd linux headers/symbols for a kernel module in their current 1.8.3 version, go download it and check osi_module.c.

3) Read the CDDL sections 2.1, 2.2, 6.2 and 3.1 for it's patent grant https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0 Here are sections 2.1 and 2.2 (b):

... the Initial Developer/Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license:

... under Patent Claims infringed by the making, using or selling of Original Software, to make, have made, use, practice, sell, and offer for sale, and/or otherwise dispose of the Original Software...

... under Patent Claims infringed by the making, using, or selling of Modifications made by that Contributor either alone and/or in combination with its Contributor Version (or portions of such combination), to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and/or otherwise dispose of: (1) Modifications made by that Contributor (or portions thereof); and (2) the combination of Modifications made by that Contributor with its Contributor Version (or portions of such combination)...

To say CDDL and MPL (libreoffice) has no patent grant is easily proved false and such claims are pure FUD.

There are ongoing exceptions for OpenAFS and Nvidia in the kernel (however tenuous they maybe in Nvidia's case), and EXPORT_SYMBOL is used just as much as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/lat.../EXPORT_SYMBOL https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/lat...ORT_SYMBOL_GPL

Finally, there are a few lwn articles discussing this and Linus's comments over the years too, but the most recent lwn article says this: https://lwn.net/Articles/603131/

... The last sentence above might be the most relevant in the end. For years, the kernel community has muttered threateningly about proprietary kernel modules without taking much action to change the situation. So manufacturers continue to ship such modules without much fear of any sort of reprisal. Clearly the community tolerates these modules, regardless of its (often loud) statements about the possible legal dangers that come with distributing them.

Even circumvention of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() limitations seems to be tolerated in the end; developers will complain publicly (sometimes) when it happens, but no further action ensues. So it should not be surprising if companies are figuring out that they need not worry too much about their binary-only modules.

So it is not clear that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() actually helps much at this point. It has no teeth to back it up. Instead, it could be seen as a sort of speed bump that makes life a bit more inconvenient for companies shipping binary-only modules. A GPL-only export lets developers express their feelings, and it may slow things down a bit, but, in many cases at least, these exports do not appear to be changing behavior much. The fence patches, in particular, are aimed at embedded devices, where proprietary graphics drivers are, unfortunately, still the norm. Making the interface be GPL-only is probably not going to turn that situation around.

Perhaps one could argue that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() is a classic example of an attempt at a technical solution to a social problem. If proprietary modules are truly a violation of the rights of kernel developers, then, sooner or later, some of those developers are going to need to take a stand to enforce those rights. The alternative is a world where binary-only kernel drivers are distributed with tacit approval from the kernel community, regardless of how many symbols are marked as being EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()...

Which I have to agree with, Debian/Ubuntu/Gentoo/SFLC/ZoL have one position and SF Conservancy/Linux devs have another. The line in the middle is clear to me at least: if it's not a derivative work, but still adds to the Linux ecosystem in a constructive way like ZFS or AFS, and their licenses can be compatible in every other way, then the GPL should not apply to certain exported symbols. The Linux Foundation could have a committee to decide this, they have the power. The whole ecosystem would be better off for it because of the certainty it would provide. It would likely help with GPL enforcement in other cases too where there clearly is abuse of the GPL happening. RIght now it's basically whatever goes, but it doesn't need to be if this property of the GPL is clearly defined and used in the right cases.

edit: I would rather use open source ZFS with Linux, and it would be ok if Nvidia, being closed source, was forced to have a open source OpenCL/CUDA/2D stack for Linux, and eventually they could have an open source 3D stack just like AMD or say bye to the Linux gaming market they have currently.

[starshipeleven]

Nobody wants to cross them. ZoL wanted to do a full rewrite under GPL2 and the Linux team ignored them.

If ZoL team does not have the balls to take such decisions on their own, they reap what they sow.

It's not like they need permission from Linux kernel devs to do anything.

[starshipeleven]

FreeBSD is today what Linux use to be.

Niche, focused on servers only, and lagging behind on desktop/laptop hardware support so much that for graphics you are basically forced to use NVIDIA proprietary drivers if you want more than basic 2D screen acceleration. It also has 0 support for double-graphics laptops.

Yeah, it sounds like Linux 10 years ago allright.

[starshipeleven]

oiaohm In the end it won't even matter tho.. Redhat (read IBM) is slowly turning Linux into a pile of crap remicent of windows. FreeBSD is the new Linux and they have no problem adopting great technology and have a sane licence.

You mean like they have no problem at using the ZoL codebase that is developed mostly for Linux by companies that actually use ZFS on Linux, while the other ZFS codebase used by other Unix systems is left to rot?