Ubuntu Is Planning To Make The ZFS File-System A "Standard" Offering

[ryao]

That chart is correct without adjustments: derived works of GPL code must be released under the GPL, not under a GPL-compatible license, as the GPL licence states in section 5:



From my understanding, the GPL allows to distribute "the modifications to produce it from the Program" under a GPL-compatible license, since those modifications are your own copyright; however, the whole derived work (the program + the modifications) must be under the GPL, as reads the above quote. The point of GPL-compatible licenses is that you can combine a GPL-compatible work and a GPL work, and release the combination as GPL code. If the work you want to combine is GPL-incompatible, then you can't combine it with GPL code, under no license. Compatible does not mean that GPL code can be redistributed with a BSD license (as an example).

A GPL-compatible license does not preclude binaries built from code added to a GPL project under a GPL-compatible license by the copyright holder of the code added to that project from being subject to the terms of the GPL in their entirety should a court of law consider the changes to be a derived work. That is because it is by definition, a GPL-compatible license, which means that if it must be subject to the GPL in distribution of a binary, the additional restrictions are not a problem. Additionally, copyright law gives you the right to license your changes any way you want. Whether you can distribute them in a binary program without violating the GPL is another story should that program contain the original GPL code.

There is plenty of code licensed this way in Linux. You can grep for X11, MIT and BSD licenses to find it. That is done in the case of graphics drivers like i915 so that they can be ported to other platforms without the code being under the GPL in those ports.

However, as you said, GPL makes an exception for aggregates, which could be used to aggregate Linux and ZFS in a single codebase. I would never do that, since it is an "aggregate" if non-GPL parts "are not combined with it [the GPL program] such as to form a larger program", and I would have serious doubts if Linux with ZFS included could be considered a single larger program, instead of two programs. I mean, it makes sense, but I believe the choice from both sides not to merge them is a good one.

I have yet to speak to an attorney familiar with OSS licensing who has any doubts over this matter. Are you an attorney?

If you dislike GPL, there are entire operating systems with many applications under different licenses, a popular example is called Windows and is produced by a firm called Microsoft. They don't use GPL. Good luck with your freedom there.

There are plenty of other choices under F/OSS licenses that are not the GPL (with the exception of small bits and pieces in most cases). FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Minix, Illumos/OpenSolaris, Coherent, etcetera.

[FuturePilot]

Ubuntu wouldn't support ZFS for the root file-system

Why not?

[cynic]

ZFS is awesome, but the future in the Linux world is BTRFS.

I see this move from Canonical as just another attempt to differentiate from the rest of the world, doing the wrong thing (upstart, mir, unity, ...)

[Sachiru]

ZFS is awesome, but the future in the Linux world is BTRFS.

I see this move from Canonical as just another attempt to differentiate from the rest of the world, doing the wrong thing (upstart, mir, unity, ...)

Yes, the future. The far, far future.

Meanwhile, until the ten years of bugsquishing are up, I'd stick with something proven, like ZFS.

[mjg59]

Since ZFS is from OpenSolaris, a port of ZFS to Linux is not a derived work of GPL code in the legal sense and it is therefore not subject to that restriction.

This is an? interesting assertion. It's certainly not difficult to find lawyers who disagree with it.

[sthalik]

Why not?

Because GRUB won't have it. FreeBSD folk went through a lot of pain in the ass to get it done on their non-GRUB end.

[nils_]

Because GRUB won't have it. FreeBSD folk went through a lot of pain in the ass to get it done on their non-GRUB end.

You'll still need a separate /boot partition with for example ext4 - don't know about UEFI though (never used it). It's a bit of a pain in the ass but I have ZFS as root FS on a LUKS encrypted device on most of my systems.

[cyrix]

This is great news for btrfs. As always, when Canonical makes some tech announcement for their OS, everybody starts working on the alternatives. They already boosted systemd and wayland development some years ago and now it's time to get a serious filesystem.

[GreatEmerald]

You'll still need a separate /boot partition with for example ext4 - don't know about UEFI though (never used it). It's a bit of a pain in the ass but I have ZFS as root FS on a LUKS encrypted device on most of my systems.

UEFI requires a FAT32 file system to boot from.

[ryao]

This is an… interesting assertion. It's certainly not difficult to find lawyers who disagree with it.

That assertion is one that has been told to me by actual lawyers. I have yet to meet a single lawyer who disagrees. So far, everyone who I have met that disagreed lacked a bar number and therefore is not a lawyer. Such people are far more numerous than actual lawyers.