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

[dfyt]

Anyone know if persistent cache is enabled yet?

[torsionbar28]

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.

[Developer12]

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.

[You-]

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.

[torsionbar28]

This is quite literally beating a dead horse.

Quite literally stabbing yourself in the leg.

This phrase, "quite literally", I do not think it means what you think it means.

[k1e0x]

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.

[Developer12]

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.

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.

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.

[You-]

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.

[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.

[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.