Thanks Oracle! New Patches Pending Can Reduce Linux Boot Times Up To ~49%

[F.Ultra]

Not quite. He never said anything about relicensing ZFS under the GPL, he spoke of other people doing it (maybe Ubuntu) because of the module interface "making it ok" (which implies it's still CDDL code, not gpl code). The comment is deliberately vague and misleading enough for you to be fooled into thinking it had something to do with relicensing which it clearly didn't otherwise he'd have said it.

So the litigious nature of Oracle, once again, is fud.

Yes he did, I posted his whole response a few pages back in a reply to you. The relevant part at hand here is:

And honestly, there is no way I can merge any of the ZFS efforts until I get an official letter from Oracle that is signed by their main legal counsel or preferably by Larry Ellison himself that says that yes, it's ok to do so and treat the end result as GPL'd.

Do you know what a "merge" does? He has said zero about license problems with Oracle outside merging ZFS with mainline Linux.

[F.Ultra]

Because all of you arguing with me have trouble understanding basic English I'm going to put this another way. If Linus is genuinely concerned about license compatibility, and if he actually cared about ZFS on Linux users, he could if he wanted, modify the Linux GPLv2 license to include a CDDL or ZFS specific linking exception and all the incompatible license issues would vanish. ZFS could even be mainlined into the kernel if they so chose as an optional component. The CDDL/GPL issue is not something that only Oracle can solve as is commonly portrayed and believed. If the Linux devs had the wherewithal they could solve it themselves if they chose to do so. Changing a license isn't the easiest thing to do in the world but it has been done before. Now sure, yeah, I get that Linus and the rest of the kernel team doesn't want to do this. They don't want ZFS, it was not invented here; but they don't need to basically lie about the situation and make claims about Oracle potentially suing and thus sow fear, uncertainty and doubt.

The big takeaway that nobody here seems to understand despite my best efforts to explain is that Linus' comments that ZFS is a legal liability because of a litigious Oracle was never grounded in reality and was always a lame excuse. If it were true it would also be true of anything else Oracle touches, and it just isn't.

There are people who actually believe building your own OpenZFS kmod and loading it in Linux is in violation of Oracle's terms and opens you up to a lawsuit from Larry. Maybe you understand that isn't true but somehow a lot of people fell under that impression.

No, Linus cannot at any time change the license of the Linux kernel code. He could back in 1991 but since then hundreds of thousands of people hold copyright to the code of the Linux Kernel (and some of them are Oracle), many of them don't even live any more, and a change of the Linux license would require that all copyright holders would have to give their consent or that the code from those not giving their consent would be thrown out.

[drjohnnyfever]

Yes he did, I posted his whole response a few pages back in a reply to you. The relevant part at hand here is:


Do you know what a "merge" does? He has said zero about license problems with Oracle outside merging ZFS with mainline Linux.

OK smartass, what does the following sentence mean?

"Other people think it can be OK to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it OK, and that's their decision. But considering Oracle's litigious nature, and the questions over licensing, there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so." -Linus Torvalds

Linus is clearly conflating two entirely different issues. That isn't me conflating it, that is Linus. Much to the confusion of everyone especially yourself.
For those who were deprived of oxygen at birth and are a bit slow, he's clearly suggesting that by violating Linux's GPL license by linking in CDDL object code Oracle might sue you. That is what that sentence says. If we totally ignore the first sentence your version of what this means kinda-sorta makes sense. If we include the first sentence it makes absolutely no sense. He's implying that just using the kernel module in Linux brings legal peril from Oracle. I do not understand how you can have your ridiculous interpretation of what he's saying when he's going on about the kernel module interfaces "making it OK" and questions over licensing when none of that has any relevance at all if he were talking about a plain GPLv2 driver, having already said he wouldn't import ZFS into mainline unless it was GPL'ed. He's clearly, obviously, talking about out of tree ZFS on Linux here.

I am correct. You would be correct if we just started ignoring random words in sentences so we can force it to fit your narrative. I agree Linus has also said he couldn't import ZFS into mainline without Oracle making it available under the GPL. But he's said much more than that.

He goes on to say you shouldn't use OpenZFS because they sued Google over some Java headers. Oh yeah he is real serious about not trusting Oracle. But give me them patches Larry!

For the record there are lots of times I have agreed with Linus on things but I'm smart enough to know the man has an axe to grind.

[F.Ultra]

OK smartass, what does the following sentence mean?

"Other people think it can be OK to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it OK, and that's their decision. But considering Oracle's litigious nature, and the questions over licensing, there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so." -Linus Torvalds

Linus is clearly conflating two entirely different issues. That isn't me conflating it, that is Linus. Much to the confusion of everyone especially yourself.
For those who were deprived of oxygen at birth and are a bit slow, he's clearly suggesting that by violating Linux's GPL license by linking in CDDL object code Oracle might sue you. That is what that sentence says. If we totally ignore the first sentence your version of what this means kinda-sorta makes sense. If we include the first sentence it makes absolutely no sense. He's implying that just using the kernel module in Linux brings legal peril from Oracle. I do not understand how you can have your ridiculous interpretation of what he's saying when he's going on about the kernel module interfaces "making it OK" and questions over licensing when none of that has any relevance at all if he were talking about a plain GPLv2 driver, having already said he wouldn't import ZFS into mainline unless it was GPL'ed. He's clearly, obviously, talking about out of tree ZFS on Linux here.

I am correct. You would be correct if we just started ignoring random words in sentences so we can force it to fit your narrative. I agree Linus has also said he couldn't import ZFS into mainline without Oracle making it available under the GPL. But he's said much more than that.

He goes on to say you shouldn't use OpenZFS because they sued Google over some Java headers. Oh yeah he is real serious about not trusting Oracle. But give me them patches Larry!

For the record there are lots of times I have agreed with Linus on things but I'm smart enough to know the man has an axe to grind.

FFS, he is not talking about out of tree modules here. He is talking about merging ZFS into the mainline kernel as a module, since people have argued that he might get around the license issues that way.

Also not the I in "there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so". He is not talking about e.g Ubuntu including OpenZFS in their distribution, he is talking about HIM not feeling safe including ZFS in mainline Linux by way of kernel module.

You are just trying to straw-man the whole issue like you have been doing from the beginning.

[drjohnnyfever]

FFS, he is not talking about out of tree modules here. He is talking about merging ZFS into the mainline kernel as a module, since people have argued that he might get around the license issues that way.

Also not the I in "there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so". He is not talking about e.g Ubuntu including OpenZFS in their distribution, he is talking about HIM not feeling safe including ZFS in mainline Linux by way of kernel module.

You are just trying to straw-man the whole issue like you have been doing from the beginning.

In a brilliant move in your last post here you made my point for me.

Let's say, hypothetically, Linus agreed that kernel module DID get around the license issue (You me and Linus all agree it doesn't in real life). WHERE DOES ORACLE SUING THEM COME IN????????? If Linus did mainline ZFS under CDDL as a module it IS HIS OWN LICENSE HE'D BE VIOLATING! The CDDL WOULD STILL BE SATISFIED. Larry wouldn't have a claim in the world. But right after, Linus says "there's no way I can feel safe ever doing so" because of "Oracle's litigious nature". NO SENSE MAKE

So even on your own terms if Linus is talking about mainlining ZFS under the CDDL as a module not solving the licensing issue he's completely mixing it with Oracle being litigious and suing people for 'some reason'. According to you Oracle would only sue if he started copy pasting GPLv2 license over the CDDL (and I would largely agree with you there). But that is a lot different than just importing the code and making it module only like "some have suggested." to get around the GPL

So why would he "never feel safe ever doing so" not violating Oracle's license? Because it is FUD.

Linus says "don't use ZFS" and he's going to use the specter of Larry Ellison to help him.

[zyxxel]

OK smartass, what does the following sentence mean?

"Other people think it can be OK to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it OK, and that's their decision. But considering Oracle's litigious nature, and the questions over licensing, there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so." -Linus Torvalds

Linus is clearly conflating two entirely different issues. That isn't me conflating it, that is Linus. Much to the confusion of everyone especially yourself.
For those who were deprived of oxygen at birth and are a bit slow, he's clearly suggesting that by violating Linux's GPL license by linking in CDDL object code Oracle might sue you. That is what that sentence says.

Ehrm. No, he isn't.

And that isn't what that sentence says.

The GPL license is like a virus - it infects. So to include other code into a GPL:ed code base, that new code must also now be GPL:ed. And he doesn't have it in writing that Oracle is willing to GPL their ZFS code.

So - you earlier complained that no one here understands English. If you constantly have this issue, then the most probably cause is you! You are constantly misunderstanding and you are constantly moving the goal posts.

Linus did not say he saw an issue with users using any ZFS module - that's a big fail from your side. Linus did claim he do not dare to merge the source code. That's what it means to bring it into the mainline kernel instead of having people free-compiling the ZFS code and just link the module at runtime.

You just claimed that you do understand the concept of modules etc in the Linux kernel. So once more - are you? All your arguing very clearly indicates you aren't!

If we totally ignore the first sentence your version of what this means kinda-sorta makes sense. If we include the first sentence it makes absolutely no sense. He's implying that just using the kernel module in Linux brings legal peril from Oracle. I do not understand how you can have your ridiculous interpretation of what he's saying when he's going on about the kernel module interfaces "making it OK" and questions over licensing when none of that has any relevance at all if he were talking about a plain GPLv2 driver, having already said he wouldn't import ZFS into mainline unless it was GPL'ed. He's clearly, obviously, talking about out of tree ZFS on Linux here.

No - he is very clearly saying that he wouldn't import it into mainline (i.e. merging source code - not linking modules) unless Oracle re-releases the code under the GPL license, which would disarm Oracle's ability to sue.

[drjohnnyfever]

Ehrm. No, he isn't.

And that isn't what that sentence says.

The GPL license is like a virus - it infects. So to include other code into a GPL:ed code base, that new code must also now be GPL:ed. And he doesn't have it in writing that Oracle is willing to GPL their ZFS code.

So - you earlier complained that no one here understands English. If you constantly have this issue, then the most probably cause is you! You are constantly misunderstanding and you are constantly moving the goal posts.

Linus did not say he saw an issue with users using any ZFS module - that's a big fail from your side. Linus did claim he do not dare to merge the source code. That's what it means to bring it into the mainline kernel instead of having people free-compiling the ZFS code and just link the module at runtime.

You just claimed that you do understand the concept of modules etc in the Linux kernel. So once more - are you? All your arguing very clearly indicates you aren't!



No - he is very clearly saying that he wouldn't import it into mainline (i.e. merging source code - not linking modules) unless Oracle re-releases the code under the GPL license, which would disarm Oracle's ability to sue.

See now you are just be obtuse. You are looking at one word- merge - and focusing on it so much you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I know Linus originally created Git after saying source code control was for idiots for years, but the word merge can have broader meanings than just a git merge operation. And I am not even sure an import of OpenZFS into Linux actually would be strictly speaking be just a merge operation anyway...

He specifically says "Other people think it can be OK to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it OK, and that's their decision." Their decision, he doesn't say their opinion or their theory he says decision. That word decision implies that people are ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING. Clearly these people haven't decided to mainline ZFS into the Official Linux Source Tree. Only Linus can do that, right? So who has made the decision to ship ZFS with Linux? Canonical for one.

OK now for the real important part. He specifically says "...considering Oracle's litigious nature, and the questions over licensing, there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so."
What do the verb and adverb "doing so" refer to in this sentence? MIXING CDDL and GPL licensed objects! HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE IN THE PRIOR SENTENCE HE JUST SAID THAT! If he were talking about distributing OpenZFS under the GPL (where he'd actually have to be worried about being sued) he WOULD NOT HAVE SAID 'and that the module interface makes it OK' and 'that's their decision' in the prior damn sentence. Why do we know he wouldn't have said that about OpenZFS re-licensed as GPL code? BECAUSE IN THE CONTEXT OF GPL CODE THAT MAKES NO SENSE. There is nothing to 'MAKE OK' if it had a GPL header slapped on.

So, if we were to paraphrase, he's saying in sentence one: People have made the decision to distribute OpenZFS and Linux together because they think that the module interface somehow makes that OK.

Then in sentence two he says: There is a legal threat from Oracle for using ZFS and Linux together because of 'questions over licensing' such that he would never feel comfortable doing so.

'Questions over licensing' is another brilliantly silly phrase to use. It sort of obfuscates the situation. Either linking to CDDL licensed objects violates the GPL or it doesn't. AND NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ORACLE. Its almost like he's trying to break the news to his mom about a bad grade he got on an essay because of 'questions over grading practices.' Is there legitimately a question about what OpenZFS's license is or anything like that? NO.

So while Linus has said flatly that unless Oracle GPL's ZFS it isn't going to get into Linux. That is just swell. But then he goes on yammering about other people making decisions and Oracle suing people and it making him uncomfortable. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THOSE STATEMENTS, TO SOMEHOW ADD CLARITY? HA. OpenZFS can never be mainlined into Linux unless released as GPL is PERFECTLY CLEAR. So why all the extra noise?

I'm really trying to annotate this crap so you can follow along. Show that passage from Linus to your mom and dad upstairs and see what they think it means without prompting them with your bizarre interpretation first....

Also way to go ignoring the part where he yammers on about Oracle suing Google.

[zyxxel]

See now you are just be obtuse. You are looking at one word- merge - and focusing on it so much you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I know Linus originally created Git after saying source code control was for idiots for years, but the word merge can have broader meanings than just a git merge operation. And I am not even sure an import of OpenZFS into Linux actually would be strictly speaking be just a merge operation anyway...

He specifically says "Other people think it can be OK to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it OK, and that's their decision." Their decision, he doesn't say their opinion or their theory he says decision. That word decision implies that people are ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING. Clearly these people haven't decided to mainline ZFS into the Official Linux Source Tree. Only Linus can do that, right? So who has made the decision to ship ZFS with Linux? Canonical for one.

It's irrelevant what other people think/says. After all, a number of people says that the world is flat.

What Linus is saying is that it's irrelevant what other people says. Why? Because what other people says doesn't affect the law or the license agreements.

So what Linus is saying is that whatever you her people saying, he wants Oracle to officially document the code as GPL before he thinks it safe to include (yes - another word for merge) the code in the the mainline kernel.

Merge can mean so much more than a git operation - and I never ever write the word with implication of git but with the implications of combining code as meant by the GPL license. That should have been 100% obvious, since so clearly distinguished between the merge of code, and separately building ZFS and runtime-loading the module.

OK now for the real important part. He specifically says "...considering Oracle's litigious nature, and the questions over licensing, there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so."
What do the verb and adverb "doing so" refer to in this sentence? MIXING CDDL and GPL licensed objects! HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE IN THE PRIOR SENTENCE HE JUST SAID THAT! If he were talking about distributing OpenZFS under the GPL (where he'd actually have to be worried about being sued) he WOULD NOT HAVE SAID 'and that the module interface makes it OK' and 'that's their decision' in the prior damn sentence. Why do we know he wouldn't have said that about OpenZFS re-licensed as GPL code? BECAUSE IN THE CONTEXT OF GPL CODE THAT MAKES NO SENSE. There is nothing to 'MAKE OK' if it had a GPL header slapped on.

It's irrelevant that you now have posted these sentences maybe 10 times in the thread. You still haven't shown that you understand the meaning. It just r/whooosh-es over your head.

You just aren't able to consider the difference between give and take.
- give is to send source code lines for introduction into the kernel. When doing so, the sender has to agree to the relevant license terms.
- taking is to pick up existing code and introduce into the own work - that's only possible if the existing code already has the correct licensing terms.

In short - Oracle haven't published the code as GPL. Linus can't on his own copy the code into the kernel and then rewrite the ZFS license into a GPL license - only Oracle can do that.

'Questions over licensing' is another brilliantly silly phrase to use. It sort of obfuscates the situation. Either linking to CDDL licensed objects violates the GPL or it doesn't. AND NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ORACLE. Its almost like he's trying to break the news to his mom about a bad grade he got on an essay because of 'questions over grading practices.' Is there legitimately a question about what OpenZFS's license is or anything like that? NO.

Ehr. Again, you are unlucky. Exactly how many times now? Ten in a row? Probably more like 50 in a row.

Oracle decides the license of ZFS.
The Linux kernel is GPL.
The ZFS code can continue to be CDDL - but only if Oracle is willing to dual-license it to be CDDL and GPL. That's the only way the ZFS code can be integrated into the kernel. GPL requires GPL. Taking code that isn't GPL and introduce into a GPL-ed application is a violation of the license of the code that got introduced because of the new license introduced for the code. New license requires the owners permission. That owner is Oracle. Merge kernel source code with ZFS source code without Oracle's permission is bad. And will stay bad unless Oracle explicitly accepts it - such as by applying a GPL license to the code.

So while Linus has said flatly that unless Oracle GPL's ZFS it isn't going to get into Linux. That is just swell. But then he goes on yammering about other people making decisions and Oracle suing people and it making him uncomfortable. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THOSE STATEMENTS, TO SOMEHOW ADD CLARITY? HA. OpenZFS can never be mainlined into Linux unless released as GPL is PERFECTLY CLEAR. So why all the extra noise?

No one is arguing about what Linus feels about Oracle. No one is arguing about what Linus thinks about people using ZFS.

What we are arguing about is just adding ZFS to the mainline kernel.

So why have you - multiple times - arguing against this statement? And now suddenly switches and pretends that it's you who are fighting for this side and we are of the reverse view?

I'm really trying to annotate this crap so you can follow along. Show that passage from Linus to your mom and dad upstairs and see what they think it means without prompting them with your bizarre interpretation first....

No - you are really trying to show that you are lost, because you aren't picking up what other people are saying and instead moving goal posts and making strawman arguments.

Also way to go ignoring the part where he yammers on about Oracle suing Google.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

[drjohnnyfever]

It's irrelevant what other people think/says. After all, a number of people says that the world is flat.

What Linus is saying is that it's irrelevant what other people says. Why? Because what other people says doesn't affect the law or the license agreements.

So what Linus is saying is that whatever you her people saying, he wants Oracle to officially document the code as GPL before he thinks it safe to include (yes - another word for merge) the code in the the mainline kernel.

Merge can mean so much more than a git operation - and I never ever write the word with implication of git but with the implications of combining code as meant by the GPL license. That should have been 100% obvious, since so clearly distinguished between the merge of code, and separately building ZFS and runtime-loading the module.



It's irrelevant that you now have posted these sentences maybe 10 times in the thread. You still haven't shown that you understand the meaning. It just r/whooosh-es over your head.

You just aren't able to consider the difference between give and take.
- give is to send source code lines for introduction into the kernel. When doing so, the sender has to agree to the relevant license terms.
- taking is to pick up existing code and introduce into the own work - that's only possible if the existing code already has the correct licensing terms.

In short - Oracle haven't published the code as GPL. Linus can't on his own copy the code into the kernel and then rewrite the ZFS license into a GPL license - only Oracle can do that.


Ehr. Again, you are unlucky. Exactly how many times now? Ten in a row? Probably more like 50 in a row.

Oracle decides the license of ZFS.
The Linux kernel is GPL.
The ZFS code can continue to be CDDL - but only if Oracle is willing to dual-license it to be CDDL and GPL. That's the only way the ZFS code can be integrated into the kernel. GPL requires GPL. Taking code that isn't GPL and introduce into a GPL-ed application is a violation of the license of the code that got introduced because of the new license introduced for the code. New license requires the owners permission. That owner is Oracle. Merge kernel source code with ZFS source code without Oracle's permission is bad. And will stay bad unless Oracle explicitly accepts it - such as by applying a GPL license to the code.


No one is arguing about what Linus feels about Oracle. No one is arguing about what Linus thinks about people using ZFS.

What we are arguing about is just adding ZFS to the mainline kernel.

So why have you - multiple times - arguing against this statement? And now suddenly switches and pretends that it's you who are fighting for this side and we are of the reverse view?


No - you are really trying to show that you are lost, because you aren't picking up what other people are saying and instead moving goal posts and making strawman arguments.


Irrelevant to the discussion.

Are you actually this stupid or is this just useless trolling? I'm not arguing about mainlining ZFS into Linux, I'm arguing about Linus' public comments. Do you not understand the difference? You commented on my post and engaged in this stupid flame war and you are are talking about something totally different than what I was saying? You are trying to have some other fight that I'm not having.

I haven't moved the goalposts or changed my position at all. I HAVE MERELY TRIED TO ILLUSTRATE THAT LINUS' PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE DELIBERATELY MISLEADING and OBFUSCATORY, or at best slightly stupid.

Lets say you are right, and Linus never meant to unfairly denigrate ZFS or make allusions to threats from Oracle to ZFS users. In that case HE'S JUST TERRIBLE AT EXPLAINING IT. There is huge mess when it comes to people's understanding of the GPL / ZFS incompatibility issue

and Linus is doing just a terrific job at handling it in the Linux community (sarcasm)-

And that is how we end up with tripe like this: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/...zfs-and-linux/

With sections that make a fair point like:
"Conservancy (as a Linux copyright holder ourselves), along with the members of our coalition in the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers, all agree that Canonical and others infringe Linux copyrights when they distribute zfs.ko."

Along with crap like:
"Furthermore, we cannot predict Oracle's view — given its past willingness to enforce copyleft licenses, and Oracle's recent attempts to adjudicate the limits of copyright in Court. Downstream users should consider carefully before engaging in even source-only distribution."

As Linux contributors they sure seem to have a problem with Oracle that goes way beyond CDDL and GPL incompatibility. Don't touch them oracle codes you might get sued Copyright (c) 2019, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

So yes I am picking on Linus for being unnecessarily bad at explaining this crap, because he is the one people are going to pay attention to.

[F.Ultra]

In a brilliant move in your last post here you made my point for me.

Let's say, hypothetically, Linus agreed that kernel module DID get around the license issue (You me and Linus all agree it doesn't in real life). WHERE DOES ORACLE SUING THEM COME IN????????? If Linus did mainline ZFS under CDDL as a module it IS HIS OWN LICENSE HE'D BE VIOLATING! The CDDL WOULD STILL BE SATISFIED. Larry wouldn't have a claim in the world. But right after, Linus says "there's no way I can feel safe ever doing so" because of "Oracle's litigious nature". NO SENSE MAKE

So even on your own terms if Linus is talking about mainlining ZFS under the CDDL as a module not solving the licensing issue he's completely mixing it with Oracle being litigious and suing people for 'some reason'. According to you Oracle would only sue if he started copy pasting GPLv2 license over the CDDL (and I would largely agree with you there). But that is a lot different than just importing the code and making it module only like "some have suggested." to get around the GPL

So why would he "never feel safe ever doing so" not violating Oracle's license? Because it is FUD.

Linus says "don't use ZFS" and he's going to use the specter of Larry Ellison to help him.

The oracle suing bit comes in because (as you wrote yourself) your hypothetical situation does not work in real life, I'm seriously starting to suspect that you have some straw-man fetish.

And why do you think that Linus breaking other peoples copyright and the GPLv2 license of the Linux kernel (yes Linus does not own the license nor the copyright to the Linux kernel source code as I've explained to you before) would come without serious side effects (I even explained this to you before) for the entire Linux Kernel project? The mega sized Pandora's box such a move would open is not something that mainlining ZFS is worth.

But you have other problems with that wild conspiracy theory of yours, namely what Linus end goal by refusing ZFS would be. It cannot be to piss on Oracle since he gladly accepts their GPL:ed patches, it's hardly for money (if he would like to be a millionaire then there are lots of things that he could have done differently over the years) so what is the big conspiracy all about?