Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Developer12 View Post

    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 CDDL was deliberately chosen as it would prevent the code from being used with a GPL kernel.

    Sued by who? the most litigious company on earth of course: Oracle.

    Remember, Oracle also distributes the linux kernel. If it wanted to stop any risk of it suing others, all it would have to do is to distribute ZFS with the linux kernel on its own. That would mostly clarify any legal concerns.

    If you think this is absurd, suing over Java was even more absurd. and they almost destroyed the industry, thats how close they got to winning.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by You- View Post

      The CDDL was deliberately chosen as it would prevent the code from being used with a GPL kernel.
      Horseshit.

      It's a made-up tale spun by Danese Cooper who has a history of drama with Sun Microsystems. It's rejected by both Simon Phipps (Chief Open Source Officer) and Bryan Cantril who actually released Sun software under the CDDL. Phipps himself puts forth a completely different chain of events.

      People keep parroting this crap because it paints Sun as being malicious and *somehow* that makes modern ZFS evil by association.

      News flash: Sun's dead. This is quite literally beating a dead horse.

      Originally posted by You- View Post
      Sued by who? the most litigious company on earth of course: Oracle. Remember, Oracle also distributes the linux kernel. If it wanted to stop any risk of it suing others, all it would have to do is to distribute ZFS with the linux kernel on its own. That would mostly clarify any legal concerns.
      Oracle already distributes DTrace modules for the linux kernel. It was ported to linux in 2011 but wasn't relicenced from the CDDL to the GPL until 2017.

      Originally posted by You- View Post
      If you think this is absurd, suing over Java was even more absurd. and they almost destroyed the industry, thats how close they got to winning.
      In case you didn't notice, the only thing from Sun that Oracle actually kept is java. It was for the very specific purpose of claiming google's android revenue, which used a java clone as it's basis. The fact that it got as far as the supreme court means that there was at least a decent chance that their interpretation was valid. Thankfully, it isn't.

      That revenue and standing just doesn't exist suing random users of a module they don't develop for a kernel they didn't write. Their only connection is through the CDDL and that isn't where the conflict lies. The CDDL itself has no problem with the GPL and freely allows covered files to be incorporated into a larger work.

      You should do some actual research on this, rather than parrot random GPL fanboy hate.
      Last edited by Developer12; 12 November 2021, 02:14 AM.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Developer12 View Post
        Horseshit.

        It's a made-up tale spun by Danese Cooper who has a history of drama with Sun Microsystems. It's rejected by both Simon Phipps (Chief Open Source Officer) and Bryan Cantril who actually released Sun software under the CDDL. Phipps himself puts forth a completely different chain of events.

        People keep parroting this crap because it paints Sun as being malicious and *somehow* that makes modern ZFS evil by association.

        News flash: Sun's dead. This is quite literally beating a dead horse.



        Oracle already distributes DTrace modules for the linux kernel. It was ported to linux in 2011 but wasn't relicenced from the CDDL to the GPL until 2017.



        In case you didn't notice, the only thing from Sun that Oracle actually kept is java. It was for the very specific purpose of claiming google's android revenue, which used a java clone as it's basis. The fact that it got as far as the supreme court means that there was at least a decent chance that their interpretation was valid. Thankfully, it isn't.

        That revenue and standing just doesn't exist suing random users of a module they don't develop for a kernel they didn't write. Their only connection is through the CDDL and that isn't where the conflict lies. The CDDL itself has no problem with the GPL and freely allows covered files to be incorporated into a larger work.

        You should do some actual research on this, rather than parrot random GPL fanboy hate.
        Exactly. Their is nothing wrong with the CDDL or with ZFS. It is free, highly useful, copyleft code. Being out of tree is a benefit because it allows it to be cross platform. Linux benefits by having it. Why are you paying NetApp and Dell EMC to run your Linux virtual machine cluster storage when you have an excellent free solution right there? You are hurting Linux with this fud. Quite literally stabbing yourself in the leg.

        As a sysadmin I love working with ZFS, It's a sable, rich, reliable way to deal with a very hard problem. Storage management.
        Last edited by k1e0x; 12 November 2021, 02:09 PM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Developer12 View Post
          This is quite literally beating a dead horse.
          Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
          Quite literally stabbing yourself in the leg.
          This phrase, "quite literally", I do not think it means what you think it means.

          Comment


          • #25
            Their is nothing wrong with the CDDL or with ZFS
            True. I have no issues with code quality of ZFS, though I have never used it and i dont know enogh to judge it. I havent heard of any code quality concerns.

            CDDL is also a fine licence. It is open source. however it is not GPL compatible. this was clear when the licence was released and it was made clear at the time it was an obvious choice.

            I am old enough to remember the conversations from the time and I dont need to read any retrofitting of information by either side.

            I see the responses here as very emotional. They remind me of discussions around crypto - people who think they can make money out of it shout down others who raise legitimate concerns. It becomes a situation where you have a fight between logic and emotion.

            "I can use this, it might benefit me" is not the same as "I have done my due diligence."

            Personally, I have no reason to use or not use ZFS and I dont have a bone in the fight.
            Last edited by You-; 12 November 2021, 06:16 PM.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by You- View Post

              True. I have no issues with code quality of ZFS, though I have never used it and i dont know enogh to judge it. I havent heard of any code quality concerns.

              CDDL is also a fine licence. It is open source. however it is not GPL compatible. this was clear when the licence was released and it was made clear at the time it was an obvious choice.

              I am old enough to remember the conversations from the time and I dont need to read any retrofitting of information by either side.

              I see the responses here as very emotional. They remind me of discussions around crypto - people who think they can make money out of it shout down others who raise legitimate concerns. It becomes a situation where you have a fight between logic and emotion.

              "I can use this, it might benefit me" is not the same as "I have done my due diligence."

              Personally, I have no reason to use or not use ZFS and I dont have a bone in the fight.
              You state the need to raise legitimate concerns but you don't state why GPL incompatibility is an issue. Simply put, it isn't.

              The linux kernel doesn't impose restrictions on what licence a module may carry. The licence is free, copyleft, and open source, respecting all the rights of those it covers. Setting aside the legal infeasibiity of suing over use of a ZFS module with linux, in the last several years of widespread enterprise use nobody has taken action over the use of OpenZFS with Linux, Oracle included.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Developer12 View Post
                You state the need to raise legitimate concerns but you don't state why GPL incompatibility is an issue. Simply put, it isn't.
                I believe some view "the issue" as the ability to mainline the ZFS code into the Linux kernel source tree. That isn't possible due to CDDL license of ZFS. Therefore, ZFS can only live on Linux as an out-of-tree module. Some view this as a problem, others do not. I really like ZFS on Linux and use it on a number of systems - so long as the integration is made easy via the various distros, I don't mind that it's out of tree. A 'dnf upgrade' is all that's required on Rocky Linux, upgrading the base OS and the external repos like ZFS, so the fact that ZFS is out-of-tree is not really even noticeable for day to day system administration. The only exception being if you want to install the OS onto ZFS.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Anyone know if persistent cache is enabled yet?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X