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

  • mjg59
    replied
    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sachiru
    replied
    Originally posted by cynic View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • cynic
    replied
    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, ...)

    Leave a comment:


  • FuturePilot
    replied
    Ubuntu wouldn't support ZFS for the root file-system
    Why not?

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by p91paul View Post

    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.

    Originally posted by p91paul View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by p91paul View Post
    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.
    Last edited by ryao; 06 October 2015, 07:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • p91paul
    replied
    Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
    My understanding is the only barrier that separates it is using say a compiled GPL Library (SDL2) and your access is limited to DLL calls so that the GPL object is a seperate library and not an extension of a GPL product. Of course, it's like FSF throwing sh1t at a wall - you make the most outrageous claims you can and see what sticks to the wall in court (this is an American Law thing unfortunately.).
    The GPL does not allow you to distribute a GPL library together with non GPL-code using it: in that case, the parts are combined to form a larger program, a single work; as such, the whole must be licensed under the GPL.

    You can still license your work under any license of your choice, demanding the user to separately obtain the library. GPL is strict in terms of redistribution: copyright law reserves all rights to the author, so there is nothing except the license itself allows you to redistribute the code, so any requirement it poses on redistribution is valid.

    The main difference from EULAs and GPL is not in the complexity, and should not be; it is all about freedom of the code and the user (not freedom of the corporation who wants to turn it into a product). GPL states that you are not required to accept the license to use the software. States that you, as an user, must be able to get the source code, and that you can modify and run it in every way you can possibly imagine. But it requires you, if you produce a work based on the software and you want to redistribute it, to keep the same license.

    The FSF and Stallman explicitly stated that using more permissive licenses might get a broader diffusion for your work. But people throwing hate to the FSF, to RMS and to anyone releasing GPL code must remember that the fact that companies cannot make money embedding GPL code in their commercial non-free products (which is the only big issue with GPL and other copyleft licenses) is not a concern for the author. If the author wants anyone who obtains a copy of his software to be able to get and modify the source, GPL is the right choice: a BSD/Apache/MIT/whateveriscoolforcompaniesnowadays license means the user might obtain from someone a modified version of the software without any option to receive the corresponding source code. GPL, like any other license, is the expression of the will of the author, which, unless it is paid for his work, has no obligations towards anyone.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • p91paul
    replied
    Originally posted by ryao View Post

    Strictly speaking, that was never correct from what I know from speaking to lawyers. You must only put things under GPL-compatible licenses when they are derived works of GPL code. 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.

    That said, that chart is correct (with the adjustment that it must be under a GPL-compatible license) in almost all cases involving binary copies of GPL code. Ports of software from other platforms are the main area where that is not the case.
    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:

    You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
    ...
    c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.
    ....
    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).

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
    What's interesting is that a project like WordPress claims that all plugins and extensions are subject to the oppression of the GPL - so strictly speaking, all paid plugins are technically illegal. Yet morally, those plugins are not derivative works even though they include various hooks into the WP system, etc... as WordPress operates in source form at run-time and not binary.
    That is a different situation unless you are talking about plugins that were made for something other than wordpress and then were somehow later ported to WordPress.

    Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
    My understanding is the only barrier that separates it is using say a compiled GPL Library (SDL2) and your access is limited to DLL calls so that the GPL object is a seperate library and not an extension of a GPL product. Of course, it's like FSF throwing sh1t at a wall - you make the most outrageous claims you can and see what sticks to the wall in court (this is an American Law thing unfortunately.)
    If you think that the GPL applies to things are not derived works, your understanding of the GPL is wrong. I suggest that you read the GPLv2, which is the relevant version. It is quite clear that it only requires GPL-compatible licensing for derived works. To give a small excerpt:

    Originally posted by The GPLv2
    If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

    ...

    In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-lic...pl-2.0.en.html

    If what I am saying is not clear to you after reading the GPLv2, I suggest getting a lawyer to go over it with you.

    Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
    As someone using BTRFS - I really don't see the benefits of ZFS over the former other than advertising a draw for unintelligable corporate contacts who are hooked on the technology.
    If you are talking about Oracle, btrfs is probably a larger advertisement for them than ZFS given that btrfs was invented by an Oracle engineer. Oracle has has far less to do with ZFS than btrfs.

    Leave a comment:


  • andre30correia
    replied
    Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
    What's interesting is that a project like WordPress claims that all plugins and extensions are subject to the oppression of the GPL - so strictly speaking, all paid plugins are technically illegal. Yet morally, those plugins are not derivative works even though they include various hooks into the WP system, etc... as WordPress operates in source form at run-time and not binary.

    It seems to be a common misconception that the GPL is a liberal license - the reality is the exact opposite. Like a cancer it requires all derivatives and anything that interacting on a non-binary level to adopt its oversight. This is fantastic for users, but not for developers or commercial interests. MIT or BSD or even the WTFPL are truly liberal. That said, I myself have contributed GPL code and I believe there's a time and place for it.

    My understanding is the only barrier that separates it is using say a compiled GPL Library (SDL2) and your access is limited to DLL calls so that the GPL object is a seperate library and not an extension of a GPL product. Of course, it's like FSF throwing sh1t at a wall - you make the most outrageous claims you can and see what sticks to the wall in court (this is an American Law thing unfortunately.)

    As someone using BTRFS - I really don't see the benefits of ZFS over the former other than advertising a draw for unintelligable corporate contacts who are hooked on the technology.

    one good reason to use ZFS?

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    I've been wanting to build a ZFS-based NAS for awhile now, and never really did settle on an OS. At this point I might as well just go with Linux.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X