OpenZFS 3.0 Could See macOS Support & DirectIO, While ZFS For Windows Continues

[CommunityMember]

Most of OpenZFS code is not under Oracle's copyright as everything after the fork (in ~2010) has been separate work.

It is still (mostly) under CDDL, however, and the status of shipping CDDL code in GNU/Linux distributions is disputed (some lawyers say yes, some say no, but AFAIK there is no controlling legal decision).

[Developer12]

Timely response: It is incompatible with the GPL, which the linux kernel is licensed under. Worse, the copyright holder for ZFS is oracle, one of the most litigious companies in the world. Feel free to use it for home projects, but if you use it in a business where you make money, be pretty sure you can keep that money and not have to hand it over.

In case it escaped your notice, LOTS AND LOTS of enterprise companies use ZFS in production. It's what actually funds OpenZFS' development.

The SFC might tell you that *any* non-GPL kernel module is illegal to use with linux, but that's not a view shared by........well, literally anyone else. The project's tolerance for other licences is embodied in the source code of the kernel itself in the form of EXPORT_SYMBOL and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.

[Space Heater]

It is still (mostly) under CDDL, however, and the status of shipping CDDL code in GNU/Linux distributions is disputed (some lawyers say yes, some say no, but AFAIK there is no controlling legal decision).

Being licensed under the CDDL is unrelated to the question of whether or not Oracle is the copyright holder of OpenZFS - which was the topic of my post.

[SteveW]

Michael - curious to see some benchmarks:
NTFS vs OpenZFS (and Btrfs?) on Windows
NTFS vs OpenZFS (and any others you want to include, although there's been plenty previously) on Linux

Using the new Paragon kernel driver for NTFS, of course - maybe include FUSE version too for comparison.

[partcyborg]

Linux namespace support!!! FINALLY!

The fact that you can't use cgroup io throttling on a zfs pool is a never ending source of frustration both at home and at work.

[szymon_g]

what does the zfs provide, for the macosx user, that apfs does not? (serious question)

[KesZerda]

what does the zfs provide, for the macosx user, that apfs does not? (serious question)

Offhand the big ones are cross-platform capabilities and more disk topologies to choose from. Being able to transport large amounts of data without needing to use fat32 is sometimes a huge benefit. Also, macOS only supports raid 0, 1, 10, and jbod, so you could see a performance or disk utilization benefit from being able to use ZFS's extensive support for how your volumes are laid out, which could be useful for thunderbolt arrays and the like.

[k1e0x]

CDDL is better than the GPL because it grants the software patent. GPL grants no patents.

[You-]

In case it escaped your notice, LOTS AND LOTS of enterprise companies use ZFS in production. It's what actually funds OpenZFS' development.

The risk is theirs to take. If they get sued they wont have a leg to stand on. If they don't get sued, they will be fine.

CDDL is better than the GPL because it grants the software patent. GPL grants no patents.

It may very well be better. I wont argue against that.

However the question here is whether they are compatible and what your legal and financial risks are in using it.

[Developer12]

The risk is theirs to take. If they get sued they wont have a leg to stand on. If they don't get sued, they will be fine.

Sued by who? And for what?

There isn't a licence violation taking place: you can use a module under any licence you please with the Linux kernel, see nvidia. The only thing Linus cares about is if it's a derived work of the kernel, which ZFS is very clearly not. It was developed on two whole other operating systems before being ported to linux and the codebase is shared across them.

And the potential conflict between licences is entirely on the GPL side. Linux kernel devs don't tend to go after their customers for using a module, proprietary or otherwise.