Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenZFS 2.0.1 Released With Linux 5.10 Support, Many Fixes

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

  • OpenZFS 2.0.1 Released With Linux 5.10 Support, Many Fixes

    Phoronix: OpenZFS 2.0.1 Released With Linux 5.10 Support, Many Fixes

    Released at the end of November was the much anticipated OpenZFS 2.0 open-source ZFS file-system implementation for Linux and FreeBSD systems. Today that has been succeeded by OpenZFS 2.0.1 with support for newer Linux kernels and many bug fixes...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...2.0.1-Released

  • #2
    And here I thought Autotools never broke (supposedly designed to work across multiple systems)...

    Comment


    • #3
      Hear me out.. if RHEL shipped OpenZFS as a package and Oracle would copy that for their RHEL clone, that would implicitly mean they are completely fine with license compatibility, therefore no more grey area.

      Comment


      • #4
        Wonder when Ubuntu will get 2.x

        Comment


        • #5
          I wish Oracle would just relicense ZFS as MPLv2 (similar to CDDL). Then it could be merged with the kernel source tree.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
            I wish Oracle would just relicense ZFS as MPLv2 (similar to CDDL). Then it could be merged with the kernel source tree.
            I also wish Oracle wouldn't create a supreme court precedent that APIs are copyrightable ...

            That's not going to happen either.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by cen1 View Post
              Hear me out.. if RHEL shipped OpenZFS as a package and Oracle would copy that for their RHEL clone, that would implicitly mean they are completely fine with license compatibility, therefore no more grey area.
              Oracle doesn't own it, no different than Oracle being fine with the MariaDB license.

              ~50% of OpenZFS is new code not created by Oracle and not found in OracleZFS. (and most of it created by the original sun employees that wrote it in the first place who quit Oracle)

              Also TECHNICALLY Solaris was never officially Un-Opensourced, so it still should be bound to the CDDL. Where is the code for Solaris 11 Oracle? hmm? Oracle is in violation of the CDDL themselves the licence bites both ways, if they distribute binaries they must share the source. It should be audited to make sure they own copyright for each and every file in Solaris.. if not.. well.. we have a BSDi vs AT&T situation. (BSD won that)

              I would say that even if Oracle relicensed OracleZFS, they probably can no longer be merged. It's been nearly 20 years now since Oracle had anything to do with OpenZFS code. - The OpenZFS team did agree to rewrite the Oracle parts if Linus agreed to include it and the Linux kernel team didn't respond and even attacked them.

              Nope. Not going to happen, it's a license cold war at this point.. but it doesn't really matter. Ubuntu has been shipping it for years now and so by evidence of them not being sued by the most sue happy company on earth, they are right the FSF is wrong, CDDL is defacto GPL compatible if not explicitly because you can comply with both licenses at the same time without causing harm to either. The spirit of the licenses are the same. The wording of the GPL makes them incompatible, so FSF says at least.. (The CDDL itself says it is compatible.) The license intent is the same for both, the trouble is the unclear definitions used in the GPL regarding works. Either way, no harm, no lawsuit. Oracle would sue if they could.

              The reason Oracle keeps this situation as is, is because they make a lot of money selling their Enterprise Storage Appliances.. and OpenZFS is a threat to that. Why pay huge license fees for enterprise ZFS if Oracle Linux could do it? So Oracle just tries to steal open source code from the community created by Sun to sell their products and create as much FUD around ZFS adoption as they can.. true to their evil nature. It's even worse when you think... they didn't even write it to begin with. Jeff Bonwick, Matt Ahrens & George Wilson and others wrote it and they continue to do so as OpenZFS.
              Last edited by k1e0x; 07 January 2021, 03:48 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

                Oracle doesn't own it, no different than Oracle being fine with the MariaDB license.

                ~50% of OpenZFS is new code not created by Oracle and not found in OracleZFS. (and most of it created by the original sun employees that wrote it in the first place who quit Oracle)

                Also TECHNICALLY Solaris was never officially Un-Opensourced, so it still should be bound to the CDDL. Where is the code for Solaris 11 Oracle? hmm? Oracle is in violation of the CDDL themselves the licence bites both ways, if they distribute binaries they must share the source. It should be audited to make sure they own copyright for each and every file in Solaris.. if not.. well.. we have a BSDi vs AT&T situation. (BSD won that)

                I would say that even if Oracle relicensed OracleZFS, they probably can no longer be merged. It's been nearly 20 years now since Oracle had anything to do with OpenZFS code. - The OpenZFS team did agree to rewrite the Oracle parts if Linus agreed to include it and the Linux kernel team didn't respond and even attacked them.

                Nope. Not going to happen, it's a license cold war at this point.. but it doesn't really matter. Ubuntu has been shipping it for years now and so by evidence of them not being sued by the most sue happy company on earth, they are right the FSF is wrong, CDDL is defacto GPL compatible if not explicitly because you can comply with both licenses at the same time without causing harm to either. The spirit of the licenses are the same. The wording of the GPL makes them incompatible, so FSF says at least.. (The CDDL itself says it is compatible.) The license intent is the same for both, the trouble is the unclear definitions used in the GPL regarding works. Either way, no harm, no lawsuit. Oracle would sue if they could.

                The reason Oracle keeps this situation as is, is because they make a lot of money selling their Enterprise Storage Appliances.. and OpenZFS is a threat to that. Why pay huge license fees for enterprise ZFS if Oracle Linux could do it? So Oracle just tries to steal open source code from the community created by Sun to sell their products and create as much FUD around ZFS adoption as they can.. true to their evil nature. It's even worse when you think... they didn't even write it to begin with. Jeff Bonwick, Matt Ahrens & George Wilson and others wrote it and they continue to do so as OpenZFS.
                My point was that if Oracle shipped OpenZFS themself it would implicitly mean that CDDL+GPL compatibility is not problematic for them and they could not sue anyone doing the same.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by cen1 View Post

                  My point was that if Oracle shipped OpenZFS themself it would implicitly mean that CDDL+GPL compatibility is not problematic for them and they could not sue anyone doing the same.
                  They won't.. don't worry about things that aren't going to happen.

                  I think it's pretty clear they can't get a lawsuit together and ZFS will never be in the Linux kernel because it's no longer a Unix or Linux only filesystem.. they now support 5 platforms so keeping it out and making it modular is actually beneficial for them because having a cross platform, widely portable/exportable filesystem is nice. Ubuntu is the model for it.. if you want it, you can do it.. It's part of Ubuntu(tm) but it isn't part of Linux(tm)
                  Last edited by k1e0x; 08 January 2021, 04:55 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There is no grey area there; never was. NVidia and VMWare demonstrated that linking anything, including closed-source code, with Linux kernel is fine. From Oracle (CDDL) side of things there was never a problem in the first place: if there's license incompatibility between CDDL and GPL, it's the GPL side that's being breached, not CDDL.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X