Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by sthalik View Post
    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.
    There are plenty of people using Ubuntu with /boot on ZFS. It requires a debootstrap install and using fewer feature flags unless GRUB2 HEAD is used, but it works fine.

    Comment


    • #22
      My last post was a late night one (at least in the CEST timezone), and it was flawed and not polite. I apologize to all users of this forum.

      I believe the misunderstanding between me and ryao is about two different interpretation of "derived works", which are both correct. His fist though was derived works are changes made to a work, and as such, he is right, they must be under a GPL-compatible license. My first thought is a derived work is the modified work, i.e. the work together with the changes, and as such it must be distributed under the GPL. The only thing I should have said was "Hey ryao, I believe the chart unixfan2001 is showing, when it reads 'must use GPL for everything' about the right to modify means what happens if you take a project, fork it, and redistribute the fork (not the patch alone); then the modified work must be under the GPL". Much shorter, more polite, more clear and more correct.

      About ZFS on Linux: my tone was so bad and was being so much an ass you asked me if I was a lawyer. I know you probably knew the answer, and you made the question because you are more polite and me so you assume someone else might be right, but no, I'm not a lawyer, just a developer who pretends to be a GPL expert. The other flaw here is that I quoted GPL3, which does not apply at all to the topic, since Linux is GPL2. My point was: I believe this is a grey area, there are no technical reasons to prefer merging the codebases, so it's a good idea not to do that. Like a friendly advice given with totally unfriendly words, you know. I would also avoid doing that after only one legal advice, I would ask many of them. Real experts (unlike me) on licenses always surprise me with the number of interpretation they can give to a seemingly clear sentence.

      About my rant on you don't like GPL, use Windows: that's the worst part. It's incorrect, as you pointed out, and I knew it was incorrect. I was like a bull seing a red flag, and the red flag for me is people claiming GPL does not offer freedom, or comparing them to EULAs for non free software. I advice those people to actually read an EULA, then read the GPL. They might be similar lenght, and both in legal language; but the GPL always insists on what you can do, instead of what you can't. It just asks to respect the original author's intent when it comes to redistribution. That might be a requirement someone is not willing to comply, and that is perfectly fine; but not a reason to attack people who like that requirement. Surely, said from the person who attacked nearly anyone on this thread, this must be lame.

      I would add something: someone is asking why to maintain ZFS and not switch anybody to btrfs; well, I think the answer is because this is the spirit of free software, or at least my understanding of it. A person needs a piece of software, has some free time, creates it; or, a person dislikes an existing piece of software, and rewrites something similar from scratch. Why don't they commit to something existing? because maybe they dislike some of the foundations on which the existing software is built, and so the modification would be too broad and would be rejected. Or maybe just because they want to create something new, which is theirs. As for maintaining old software, you can see it as the protection of endangered species: you like it, you don't want it to die, so you keep it going. I don't know the feature comparison of ZFS vs btrfs, but from other people's posts here and elsewhere seems like there are enough differences to keep them both alive and well; and even if that is not true, I'm not willing to ask someone to stop contributing to ZFS and start contributing to btrfs, since it's probably their free time they are committing to the project. It would be like asking someone who goes running in the park to stay fit: stop running, start cycling instead, bicicles are faster and newer. Yes but the guy likes to run.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by mjg59 View Post

        This is an… interesting assertion. It's certainly not difficult to find lawyers who disagree with it.
        I believe instead it would be difficult to find lawyers who disagree with it: again, not as a lawyer, but the only arguable point here is whether the package Linux+ZFS is to be distributed as GPL or not.

        ZFS on Linux, as a single project, is derived from Solaris code, and is subject on the limitations of the license of the code it is derived from; but as long it doesn't include portions of Linux itself, it shall not be concerned about GPL. I believe this is what ryao meant with the statement you quoted. The concern arises if you unify Linux and ZFS on Linux in a single project; ryao is also suggesting you can do that, and I see his point, but it is a more delicated issue probably.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by ryao View Post

          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.
          I have spoken to actual lawyers who have launched actual lawsuits in this field and who disagree with your position.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by p91paul View Post
            as long it doesn't include portions of Linux itself, it shall not be concerned about GPL.
            Whether that's true is an undecided question. Direct inclusion is not necessarily the thing that determines whether a work is derived or not. There's certainly an argument that code that depends on implementation details of Linux is a derived work of Linux. It'll probably take a court case to make a precise determination on that point, so making unequivocal statements about it is a little irresponsible.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by sthalik View Post
              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.
              Umm I boot PC-BSD with its native GRUB2. Grub can support zfs as root system. (And yes hdd where my PC-BSD and its GRUB is installed does not have more than one partition. ZFS-partition.)

              Comment


              • #27
                A first court decision of this kind could come from Christoph Hellwig's case against VMware:
                https://sfconservancy.org/linux-comp...wsuit-faq.html

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post

                  UEFI requires a FAT32 file system to boot from.
                  Ewwwww! Gross!

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by chithanh View Post
                    A first court decision of this kind could come from Christoph Hellwig's case against VMware:
                    https://sfconservancy.org/linux-comp...wsuit-faq.html
                    This is however tried in German court. I think the question of jurisdiction might be interesting as well in cases like these.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by chithanh View Post
                      A first court decision of this kind could come from Christoph Hellwig's case against VMware:
                      https://sfconservancy.org/linux-comp...wsuit-faq.html
                      It looks like VMWare incorporated GPLv2 code into one of their closed source binaries. That is very different from porting driver code to Linux via a LKM. I am confident that this has no relevance to ZFS, although I have not checked that with an attorney. A rulings about $X that is different from $Y should not affect $Y by virtue of them being different. Consequently, I see no need to confirm this with an attorney, although if you are unsure, I encourage you to ask one.

                      Since that you are also a Gentoo developer, you could ask the attorney who recently volunteered to review things for Gentoo (he has a bar number that can be checked). His opinions on licensing generally match mine because I went out of my way to understand the topic and be consistent what I have been told by actual attorneys. You are likely to hear the same thing from him that you heard from me.
                      Last edited by ryao; 07 October 2015, 08:13 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X