Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian Is Still Working To Tackle ZFS On Linux Support

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

  • Debian Is Still Working To Tackle ZFS On Linux Support

    Phoronix: Debian Is Still Working To Tackle ZFS On Linux Support

    Last month we heard libdvdcss and ZFS should soon appear in Debian GNU/Linux, but now it doesn't appear that easy... It could end up taking a while longer for the ZFS file-system and the libdvdcss support for DVD playback on Debian to appear within the official repositories...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...css-ZFS-Update

  • BlueJayofEvil
    replied
    Originally posted by finalzone View Post
    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<
    Originally posted 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

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueJayofEvil
    replied
    Originally posted by finalzone View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • finalzone
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueJayofEvil View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueJayofEvil
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by reub2000 View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • reub2000
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Which can be solved by hosting outside of the US.
    It could also be solved by repealing the stupid law. But that also works.

    Leave a comment:


  • chrisb
    replied
    Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by reub2000 View Post

    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • gens
    replied
    Originally posted by alexvoda View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X