Debian Is Still Working To Tackle ZFS On Linux Support

[gens]

I don't really understand how a FLOSS project with contributions from every country can be tied down to the laws of one country.

they shouldn't
the grand majority of OSS contributors are not from the US and shouldn't comply to their idiotic laws

on that topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA

[Luke_Wolf]

No I think he's right. It violates the DMCA's anti-circumvention restrictions. Illegal in the US.

Which can be solved by hosting outside of the US. Distributing ZFS combined with the Linux kernel on the other hand is a license violation due to the CDDL being designed specifically to be incompatible with the GPL. The end user can combine the two as long as they don't distribute it themselves but the issue itself cannot be resolved without ZFS being relicensed under something that is GPL compatible, which Oracle isn't interested in doing as they would have done so already (likely because of their vested interest in btrfs).

[chrisb]

How about they get off their asses and get GNOME 3.16.2 out and KDE 5? No one truly gives a frack whether ZFS is stable on Debian, but a select minority.

They could work on fixing the 169 Release Critical bugs in Jessie.

[reub2000]

Which can be solved by hosting outside of the US.

It could also be solved by repealing the stupid law. But that also works.

[yogi_berra]

It could also be solved by repealing the stupid law. But that also works.

It can also be solved by acknowledging that no one watches DVDs anymore.

[BlueJayofEvil]

Actually no, the ZFS part is the harder one. Libdvdcss is just a question of patents and possibly export laws effectively, whereas ZFS has a completely incompatible license to the Linux Kernel, which short of Oracle relicensing the code, can't be resolved. At best they can have the installer download the ZFS module if the user chooses to install it, with it being noted that it taints the kernel.

In regards to ZFS I'll refer you to this old post: link

[finalzone]

In regards to ZFS I'll refer you to this old post: link

Problem with the link. Why didn't Oracle use ZFS module by default on their own distribution excluding Solaris?

[BlueJayofEvil]

Problem with the link. Why didn't Oracle use ZFS module by default on their own distribution excluding Solaris?

Probably because Oracle was/is developing Btrfs on Linux and a native ZFS port would be of negligible benefit to them.
If memory serves correctly, Oracle acquired Sun after Btrfs development had begun (although I could be mistaken.) Porting an official Oracle ZFS module to Linux wouldn't likely be worth the effort for them, which is why the major ZFS ports have been by third party developers.

[BlueJayofEvil]

Problem with the link.

(Forgive this late re-reply, but I want to quote directly in case the link doesn't work for others either.)
>Original post on the Sabayon forums by ryao<

there is a great deal of FUD about licensing, but it is rather simple. The CDDL and GPL licenses are both restrictive licenses and the combination of them causes problems for people wanting to use pieces of code exclusively available under one license with pieces of code exclusively available under the other in the same binary. In the case of the kernel, this prevents us from distributing ZFS as part of the kernel binary. However, there is nothing in either license that prevents us from distributing it in the form of a binary module or in the form of source code. No one who has claimed otherwise has so far been able to find the conflicting provisions of the CDDL and GPL that prevent this form of usage.

With that said, the nature of the CDDL-GPL conflict means that many of the rules that apply to binary kernel modules also apply to ZFS. Many Linux devices, including all Android devices, use binary kernel modules and it is quite commonly accepted that this is legal (although kernel developers hate it) so long as they are not part of the kernel binary. If this were not the case, it is quite probable that we would see lawsuits over this practice because everyone who has made code contributions to the version of Linux used in the device would be able to sue. A similar situation involving the Andrew Filesystem occurred 10 years ago where Linus Torvalds publicly stated that it was perfectly legal to distribute it as a kernel module:

http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/pro...l-modules.html