Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    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..

    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    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..

    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    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..

    Leave a comment:


  • audir8
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • k1e0x
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    (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.
    Last edited by k1e0x; 07-21-2019, 05:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    Is that what the GNU tells you is it? They would.
    No its not what GNU tells me. I have sat though many legal reviews of licenses.

    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    Freedom is the lack of restrictions. Have you lost your mind? You sound like a dictator. Liberty and freedom are very real things, so is control and conformity. Open your eyes like I did. You are literally promoting a lack of individual freedom. Why should anyone listen to you with that kind of statement?
    There is no such thing as a total lack of restrictions. Our legals system does not allow it.
    https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/l...-the-law-lf-ed
    Its about time you read this book from 1961. The legal systems we use today are no better than all the way back then.

    The reality you have to choose what restrictions you will tolerate.

    GPL licenses have a set of restrictions to make sure that if you use a GPL program that someone who developed that program cannot cause you trouble in future. This is why it makes a good benchmark to compare other licenses against.

    Less restricting than GPL you miss stuff like patent protection and copyleft more restricting than GPL will also cause you problems.

    There has to be a license with the right balance of restriction and grants out there GPL , MPL and apache 2.0 licenses are fairly close to the right point. Items like

    CDDL might appear less restrictive on one hand but it lacking a restriction around patents so parties can double cross you.

    Liberty and freedom are very real things,
    This when you get into law gets horrible. Liberty and freedom mean different things depending what court you are in fact in and the case that is on trial. What will be legal freedom/liberty in one court can be a criminal offence in another in the same country.

    Liberty and Freedom are ideas/goals neither fully exists under law.

    I have not lost my mind. I am just aware what is only a idea/goals. Different groups have different ideas what Liberty and Freedom mean as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by audir8 View Post
    1) Any patents issue is separate from an OOT module requiring FPU code. FPU code which was EXPORT_SYMBOL and could be maintained by a ZFS dev if asked. No need to mix the two issues.
    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..

    None of the ZFS on Linux developers have a in Linux mainline tree module or are part of the Linux kernel keyrings for signing so work could not be given to them either. This is another case where Nvidia and OpenAFS are different there are developers working on both of them who do maintain stuff in the Linux kernel mainline so work could be given to them if it was practical.

    Bpfilter embedded userspace program in .ko module gets around that patent problem cleanly and without causing the Preempt_RT breakages.

    Originally posted by audir8 View Post
    2) OpenAFS was given an explicit exception by Linus before there was KAFS (https://www.softwarefreedom.org/reso...rnel-cddl.html)
    Read your own URL please.

    Nope. No such exception exists.
    Those are words of Linus Torvalds 2003. There was no explicit exception give by Linus ever.

    OpenAFS is made for many platforms "not a derived works" clause and to make sure of this they build drivers for multi different operating systems as part of standard development. But they have in the past been hit with a GPL flagged function that could not be reversed and had to work around the limitation as well.

    The idea that Nvidia or OpenAFS or anyone else got a special exception is a myth. Due to Linux kernel licensing Linus Torvalds cannot grant an exception even if he wanted to. Getting a exception would require every developer of the Linux kernel to agree on something that never happening.

    Linus Torvalds cannot give something he legally cannot give.

    Originally posted by audir8 View Post
    So, why take out the FPU code if Debian can work "innovative[ly]" with ZFS in contrib?
    https://github.com/torvalds/linux/bl...i-nonsense.rst
    1) They have stated there position. If you are out of tree any modification to upstream Linux mainline kenrel that breaks your code is your problem.
    So it does not matter that ZFS is in contrib or shipped by Ubuntu or anything else. Policy has been stated for over a decade now.
    2) EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL most of it locations are not about GPL infringement but about patent infringement because patents have licensed for the Linux kernel to use.

    3) Being restricted to debian contrib is that there are license issues there.

    4) not having any members part of main linux kernel development and not having a mainline driver really does limit ZFS On Linux options.

    Leave a comment:


  • audir8
    replied
    1) Any patents issue is separate from an OOT module requiring FPU code. FPU code which was EXPORT_SYMBOL and could be maintained by a ZFS dev if asked. No need to mix the two issues.

    2) OpenAFS was given an explicit exception by Linus before there was KAFS (https://www.softwarefreedom.org/reso...rnel-cddl.html) so AFS and ZFS is exactly an apples to apple comparison. ZFS just didn't get such an exception.

    Ultimately, It's up to the kernel devs, IMO if they want to go after real abuse of the GPL with the kernel, they will need to find a way to explicitly agree to certain (non-derivative) exceptions to the GPL that they're willing to make with EXPORT_SYMBOL/_GPL and work with such maintainers, and also explicitly disagree with abuses in order to have the power to stop them. Like on paper. Not going to court is great, but clearly communicating why they won't work with a CDDL project for x and y reasons but they will work with a IPL project for x and y reasons up to z extent is a fair thing to be asking from the legal representatives of Linux devs. This is the core of the problem I have, I don't see an easy solution, other than some vote maybe, though I'm not a lawyer or a kernel dev. There are OOT modules, there are GPL-breaking patches people are using, just have an official position. It might actually have the effect you want.

    Even the SFC in their opinion say https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/...zfs-and-linux/
    We note that Debian's decision to place source-only ZFS in a relegated area of their archive called contrib, is an innovative solution. Debian fortunately had a long-standing policy that contrib was specifically designed for source code that, while licensed under an acceptable license for Debian's Free Software Guidelines, also has a default use that can cause licensing problems for downstream Debian users. Therefore, Debian communicates clearly to their users that this code is problematic by keeping it out of their main archive. Furthermore, Debian does not distribute any binary form of zfs.ko.
    So, why take out the FPU code if Debian can work "innovative[ly]" with ZFS in contrib?

    Leave a comment:


  • k1e0x
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    When a license is GPL incompatible more often that not it contains something bad.
    Is that what the GNU tells you is it? They would.

    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    There is no such thing as Full Freedom in the legal world.
    Freedom is the lack of restrictions. Have you lost your mind? You sound like a dictator. Liberty and freedom are very real things, so is control and conformity. Open your eyes like I did. You are literally promoting a lack of individual freedom. Why should anyone listen to you with that kind of statement?

    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    GPL and LGPL are both very good license
    Nah.. you keep it, I'm good. I believe in odd concepts like freedom so I don't think it's for me.
    Last edited by k1e0x; 07-21-2019, 02:21 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    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.
    When a license is GPL incompatible more often that not it contains something bad.
    https://opensource.org/licenses/IPL-1.0
    The IBM Public License over openafs has some nasty teeth not patents but different.
    Each Recipient is solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using and distributing the Program and assumes all risks associated with its exercise of rights under this Agreement, including but not limited to the risks and costs of program errors, compliance with applicable laws, damage to or loss of data, programs or equipment, and unavailability or interruption of operations.
    This puts all the liability on the publisher or distributor of openafs none on the parties who wrote the code. This is not what GPL does.

    Those restrictions you are talking about protect you legal ass in most cases.

    There is no such thing as Full Freedom in the legal world.

    Like I have no problems with people choosing not to use GPL licensed stuff but you have to be aware when you using a license that is GPL incompatible you need to check is closely and locate the incompatibility. There is more often than not a serous issue with the license that could see you on the legal chopping block.

    CDDL the take back patent license meaning it effective does not have any form of patent protection. A plan BSD license without any patent statement is safer legally than CDDL because with BSD license you can argue entrapment/deception. CDDL in 2.1 and 2.2 d section clearly state "no patent license" with a list of conditions to trigger it include upstream developer deleting the patent using code out their tree at this point you have no legal defence you never got a patent license to run version different to the initial developer/contributors most current version. Its these point d that make CDDL majorly GPL incompatible. Lot of ways this is more dangerous than the IBM Public License one.

    IBM Public License one since depending on your country may be pushed on you by consumer protection laws so so places is a no difference.
    CDDL one where you have no patent coverage stated means you have no legal arguement and are left swinging in all countries with software patents.

    CDDL is a very bad license. IBM Public License is not much better.

    GPL and LGPL are both very good license benchmarking tools if license is GPL/LGPL compatible it will not contain legal teeth in it to absolutely screw you over.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by audir8 View Post
    To define this better with my $.02, the lawyers at the Linux Foundation or kernel maintainers in some committee or not, certainly could provide better certainty on what out-of-tree module can use which provides legal and non-deprecation guarantees if an OOT maintainer steps up to maintain a non-GPL symbol in-tree. This seems to be in the hands of ICs and individual maintainers right now, and I get out-of-tree might as well be in an imaginary universe, but like the AFS example (and the Nvidia example like many other likely closed source OOT modules), there should be a process where the end result is close to a black and white decision, and it's no where close to that right now for ZFS. It works, then it's slow, either support OOT modules or don't.
    You have not read the Linux kernel documentation have you.
    https://github.com/torvalds/linux/bl...i-nonsense.rst
    What you want is a stable running driver, and you get that only if your driver is in the main kernel tree.
    Out of tree drivers simply are not supported its part of the Linux kernel documentation this is how it been since before 2006 so over a decade latter.

    Kernel changes only need to check themselves against code in the main kernel tree. If a Out of Tree driver gets broken bad luck you they documented it.

    Maintaining a non-GPL symbol in kernel tree also requires the ability to properly test it using only what is contained in the kernel tree.

    kafs done by redhat uses the same functions that openafs uses and openafs developers do at times add features to kafs.
    Nvidia submits code to nouveau to protect functions they must absolutely have.

    Where is ZFS On Linux mainline kernel module they work with to protect the parts they need in mainline kernel. This means ZFS of Linux has no veto rights to changes where openafs and nvidia because they can do a veto to changes as kafs(for openafs) or as nouveau(for Nvidia).

    Hard reality the rules have been like this since before 2006.

    audir8 comparing Nvidia and openafs to ZFS On Linux not not compare apples with apples. Because both Nvidia and openafs have a gpl mainline driver proxy to protect what they need even then it does not work all the time. ZFS On Linux does not have a mainline driver has no rights in the Linux development world because its not doing mainline development.

    Yes the stable api nonsense describes all the technical reasons why you want to be able to change the ABI /API in kernel space..

    This is the hard point if you are not assisting with the Linux kernel development itself why should the mainline Linux kernel developers care about you.

    CDDL is legally problematic due to its points d on for the initial developer and contributor allowing them to take back their patents at any point point in future. We have see Microsoft and other sue android and other major Linux device uses over patents. Mainline Linux is not going to accept any code they think is patent license questionable too many parties have been sued over that stuff. So ZFS on Linux need a proper rewrite to make themselves a proxy in the Linux kernel or accept major limitations.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    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.
    What could go wrong?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t96m2ynKw0

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X