3 ms·
Oracle could put this whole legal wrangling to rest by changing the license to GPL. I am dreaming I suppose.
by wstrange 11y ago
Oracle could put this whole legal wrangling to rest by changing the license to GPL.
I am dreaming I suppose.
- protomyth 11y agoThey don't own the copyright on the patches, so it wouldn't exactly be effective.
- ryao 11y agoThis is correct.
- dmm 11y agoThey might not own the openzfs patches but they definitely own all of the zfs code. They had all contributors sign CLAs to reassign copyrights. That's how they were able to end opensolaris.
- protomyth 11y agoI'm pretty sure ZFS as last released is not as valuable without the OpenZFS contributions.
- cthalupa 11y agoFrom my understanding, Sun back in the day, and Oracle now, cannot release everything under the GPL due to contractual obligations. There's a reason they wrote the CDDL in the first place. I can't find the talks now, but I believe Cantrill and others have spoken about this previously. My memory is somewhat fuzzy, so I might be wrong on this.
- ryao 11y agoThat was Solaris and that was regarding putting all of it under an OSS license, not necessarily the GPL. There were a few tiny bits that they just could not open source. Oracle could release their fork of ZFS under any license they wish.
- bsharitt 11y agoI'm pretty surprised we haven't seen an official Oracle version of ZFS released with Oracle Linux.
- wstrange 11y agoI think there was an internal schism at Oracle regarding BTRFS vs. ZFS. The Solaris fans (generally from Sun) preferring / promoting ZFS, and hard core Linux fans (mostly Oracle) - who tended towards BTRFS.
- bsharitt 11y agoThat's right, I forgot, btrfs began as an Oracle project didn't it?