Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ZFSOnLinux 0.8.5 Released With Support For Newer Kernels, Bug Fixes

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

  • ZFSOnLinux 0.8.5 Released With Support For Newer Kernels, Bug Fixes

    Phoronix: ZFSOnLinux 0.8.5 Released With Support For Newer Kernels, Bug Fixes

    While the feature-packed OpenZFS 2.0 is on track for releasing before year's end as the evolution of ZFSOnLinux and now with FreeBSD support and many other improvements in tow, for those riding the ZFSOnLinux 0.8 stable series out today is v0.8.5...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...0.8.5-Released

  • #2
    Maybe those people should talk with oracle to re-license ZFS to a FLOSS license? Otherwise it is on life support until people realise that other FS's that are included in the kernel do the same and more...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
      Maybe those people should talk with oracle to re-license ZFS to a FLOSS license? Otherwise it is on life support until people realise that other FS's that are included in the kernel do the same and more...
      Easier said than done. Much easier...
      https://openzfs.org/wiki/FAQ#Licensing

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post

        Easier said than done. Much easier...
        https://openzfs.org/wiki/FAQ#Licensing
        Linus needs a letter from Oracle lawyers stating CDDL is compatible with the GPL or the ZFS code is safe to include in the kernel.

        Oracle won't send it because they want the legal power to sue if ZFS ever gets into Linux. ZFS is just a bomb.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
          Maybe those people should talk with oracle to re-license ZFS to a FLOSS license? Otherwise it is on life support until people realise that other FS's that are included in the kernel do the same and more...
          And what Oracle will have out og that?
          They are currently selling support for Solaris with much more advanced ZFS.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
            Maybe those people should talk with oracle to re-license ZFS to a FLOSS license? Otherwise it is on life support until people realise that other FS's that are included in the kernel do the same and more...
            We also have GPUs with drivers included in the kernel and yet the number one GPU maker ships their driver as a kernel module just like how ZFSOnLinux does. The difference is...well...both of the module solutions do more than what is included with the kernel drivers, GPU and FS, so I suppose there really isn't much of a difference there aside from one being open source and the other being closed source. No one here can claim that Nvidia is on life support because of their closed-source licensing and use of a kernel module over being included in the kernel. Aside from being open source, ZFS isn't any different; especially when multiple distributions ship with ZFS support out of the box.

            Talking about the license putting ZFS on life support in every ZFS thread is like when he-who-must-not-be-named brings up CLA in every Qt and KDE thread.

            Plus one of the CDDL clauses is that it allows to re-license code upon compilation. There is no technical reason that OpenZFS, or at least the ZFSOnLinux portion, can't relicense the compile module as GPL, MIT, or BSD and be 100% compatible with the GPLv2 in binary form.

            • 3.5. Distribution of Executable Versions.

              You may distribute the Executable form of the Covered Software under the terms of this License or under the terms of a license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this License, provided that You are in compliance with the terms of this License and that the license for the Executable form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients rights in the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. If You distribute the Covered Software in Executable form under a different license, You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ from this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer or Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer.
            TLDR: Leave all your OpenZFS changes open source and you can relicense it to a kernel compatible license once in binary form

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

              We also have GPUs with drivers included in the kernel and yet the number one GPU maker ships their driver as a kernel module just like how ZFSOnLinux does. The difference is...well...both of the module solutions do more than what is included with the kernel drivers, GPU and FS, so I suppose there really isn't much of a difference there aside from one being open source and the other being closed source. No one here can claim that Nvidia is on life support because of their closed-source licensing and use of a kernel module over being included in the kernel. Aside from being open source, ZFS isn't any different; especially when multiple distributions ship with ZFS support out of the box.

              Talking about the license putting ZFS on life support in every ZFS thread is like when he-who-must-not-be-named brings up CLA in every Qt and KDE thread.

              Plus one of the CDDL clauses is that it allows to re-license code upon compilation. There is no technical reason that OpenZFS, or at least the ZFSOnLinux portion, can't relicense the compile module as GPL, MIT, or BSD and be 100% compatible with the GPLv2 in binary form.



              TLDR: Leave all your OpenZFS changes open source and you can relicense it to a kernel compatible license once in binary form
              I generally agree with what you're saying, and I'm hoping that this approach, taken by Canonical, is going to work.

              Nonetheless, the license does say "You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer."

              And Oracle has really good lawyers ...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by vladpetric View Post

                I generally agree with what you're saying, and I'm hoping that this approach, taken by Canonical, is going to work.

                Nonetheless, the license does say "You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer."

                And Oracle has really good lawyers ...
                That just means that Ubuntu, Manjaro, etc are liable for any issues arising from their ZFS release and that their users can't sue Oracle when anything goes wrong and they lose their data.

                In other words: If I make a program with a neat premise, CDDL it, and throw it on Github and then later on you come across it and decide to sell my program as a product or offer it for free with your product, you're liable when my crappy code FUBARs your customer's system. Your customers can't sue me because I didn't offer that code in a free product or sell it to them, you did; I just made it available for free and let others run with it with all the risks included.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

                  That just means that Ubuntu, Manjaro, etc are liable for any issues arising from their ZFS release and that their users can't sue Oracle when anything goes wrong and they lose their data.

                  In other words: If I make a program with a neat premise, CDDL it, and throw it on Github and then later on you come across it and decide to sell my program as a product or offer it for free with your product, you're liable when my crappy code FUBARs your customer's system. Your customers can't sue me because I didn't offer that code in a free product or sell it to them, you did; I just made it available for free and let others run with it with all the risks included.
                  Hey, that's my reading as well. But my reading is just that - my reading (unless there's some case law which lends weight to this reading).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by vladpetric View Post

                    Hey, that's my reading as well. But my reading is just that - my reading (unless there's some case law which lends weight to this reading).
                    As far as I know, there isn't in regards to open source licenses. I've come across a few posts that speculate that if it actually went to court on a GPL vs CDDL and made it to a jury that ZFS On Linux would win since they're both free licenses and how ZoL/OpenZFS is operating in the spirit of both licenses.

                    Apparently there are non-computer cases that can be cited in regards to spirit of the licenses being followed and that being enough for juries...don't ask. I'm going off of fuzzy memory here.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X