6 ms·

Google, really? Please. Google is a Linux shop that doesn't care at all about product continuity. Why would they have cared about Solaris? I'm sure it'd have g

Google, really? Please. Google is a Linux shop that doesn't care at all about product continuity. Why would they have cared about Solaris? I'm sure it'd have got the chop instantly if Google had bought Sun. Sure, the engineers might have been able to find other opportunities within the firm, but Solaris would have been scrapped instantly (maybe open sourced, maybe not).

jedberg 9y ago
Maybe, but the main lament is that some great IP is lost (ZFS, etc.) If Google had bought them for the IP, then at least that IP would live on, which is what everyone really wants.
- nosequel 9y ago
  ZFS isn't lost. ZFS on Illumos (Smartos) and FreeBSD is alive and well.
  - jedberg 9y ago
    Sure but who owns the rights to it? That's what we mean by lost. It's locked up in a way to make it less usable.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      The original ZFS engineers now work on OpenZFS, and have for almost a decade. While the base is "owned" by Oracle, most of the innovation in ZFS (and other Solaris technologies) have been done in illumos and are owned by their respective authors. While I feel empathy for the engineers who lost their jobs, modern Solaris innovation hasn't been funded by Oracle since 2010 and the OpenSolaris debacle.
      - jedberg 9y ago
        The IP has enough shadow over it that it precludes Apple from using ZFS, even though all the tech was developed outside. That's the main issue. Things are murky and is scares people.
        ece 9y ago
        This seems like FUD, people have analyzed the licensing, and the openzfs project is independent of any company. Would you say OpenJDK was murky? I don't think so. https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/are-gplv2-and-cddl-incompatible/ https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/are-gplv2-and-cddl-incomp...
        snw 9y ago
        Whatever reasons apple had for not using ZFS at that time wasn't some "IP shadow" as the CDDL includes a patent grant. OpenZFS is open source and there is nothing murky or scary about it.
        yellowapple 9y ago
        Java is open-source, too, yet we still have Oracle trying to shake money out of its users.
        ece 9y ago
        And failing. A patent troll is a patent troll. There is nothing stopping Linux from mainlining ZFS at the source level apart from kernel developers reluctance to give into "layering violations." Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. To wit: I am not sure if linking and terms of binary distribution matter after sources have merged for open source projects. If you have the source code and have right to modify, merge and distribute it, arguing about static or dynamic linking and binary distribution is like arguing about the color of your car door after the car has been made. It's inconsequential compared to amount of IP and resources put into the source code, and easily changed by any user (to a different architecture lets say). Modifying has no meaning when it comes to binaries. But it's core to copyleft and open source. You would only care about binary licensing if you were a closed source product, and had to have ultimate control. If somebody had complete copyright over a ZFS binary, they could say how it can be used or not. The way an EULA would restrict you. Since no such copyright holder or binary exists for ZFS, and only source does, I don't think most people would stop collaboration in source code once the licenses are compatible. Linking exceptions are for those who do own all of the copyrights and want to distribute along side open source software, and having a distinction otherwise in the open source world adds to license proliferation and makes no sense. ZFS doesn't have a single copyright holder acting on it's behalf, it has lost certain privileges because of this. I'm sure Oracle would be troll about this too, but they would probably be wrong given FreeBSD and OpenZFS. I do think the GPLv3 fails a little bit because of the same argument. But I'm no lawyer.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ece 9y ago
    ZFS would have been mainlined into Linux much earlier if it had been someone like Google who had bought Sun. Now, Google is pushing into hardware and deploying POWER9 servers. Not to mention the lawsuits with Oracle could have been avoided as well. But hey, atleast they got Motorola's IP portfolio.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Cost out Oracle v. Google and get back to me.

jedberg 9y ago

Maybe, but the main lament is that some great IP is lost (ZFS, etc.) If Google had bought them for the IP, then at least that IP would live on, which is what everyone really wants.

nosequel 9y ago
ZFS isn't lost. ZFS on Illumos (Smartos) and FreeBSD is alive and well.
- jedberg 9y ago
  Sure but who owns the rights to it? That's what we mean by lost. It's locked up in a way to make it less usable.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    The original ZFS engineers now work on OpenZFS, and have for almost a decade. While the base is "owned" by Oracle, most of the innovation in ZFS (and other Solaris technologies) have been done in illumos and are owned by their respective authors. While I feel empathy for the engineers who lost their jobs, modern Solaris innovation hasn't been funded by Oracle since 2010 and the OpenSolaris debacle.
    - jedberg 9y ago
      The IP has enough shadow over it that it precludes Apple from using ZFS, even though all the tech was developed outside. That's the main issue. Things are murky and is scares people.
      - ece 9y ago
        This seems like FUD, people have analyzed the licensing, and the openzfs project is independent of any company. Would you say OpenJDK was murky? I don't think so. https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/are-gplv2-and-cddl-incompatible/ https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/are-gplv2-and-cddl-incomp...
      - snw 9y ago
        Whatever reasons apple had for not using ZFS at that time wasn't some "IP shadow" as the CDDL includes a patent grant. OpenZFS is open source and there is nothing murky or scary about it.
        yellowapple 9y ago
        Java is open-source, too, yet we still have Oracle trying to shake money out of its users.
        ece 9y ago
        And failing. A patent troll is a patent troll. There is nothing stopping Linux from mainlining ZFS at the source level apart from kernel developers reluctance to give into "layering violations." Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. To wit: I am not sure if linking and terms of binary distribution matter after sources have merged for open source projects. If you have the source code and have right to modify, merge and distribute it, arguing about static or dynamic linking and binary distribution is like arguing about the color of your car door after the car has been made. It's inconsequential compared to amount of IP and resources put into the source code, and easily changed by any user (to a different architecture lets say). Modifying has no meaning when it comes to binaries. But it's core to copyleft and open source. You would only care about binary licensing if you were a closed source product, and had to have ultimate control. If somebody had complete copyright over a ZFS binary, they could say how it can be used or not. The way an EULA would restrict you. Since no such copyright holder or binary exists for ZFS, and only source does, I don't think most people would stop collaboration in source code once the licenses are compatible. Linking exceptions are for those who do own all of the copyrights and want to distribute along side open source software, and having a distinction otherwise in the open source world adds to license proliferation and makes no sense. ZFS doesn't have a single copyright holder acting on it's behalf, it has lost certain privileges because of this. I'm sure Oracle would be troll about this too, but they would probably be wrong given FreeBSD and OpenZFS. I do think the GPLv3 fails a little bit because of the same argument. But I'm no lawyer.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ece 9y ago
  ZFS would have been mainlined into Linux much earlier if it had been someone like Google who had bought Sun. Now, Google is pushing into hardware and deploying POWER9 servers. Not to mention the lawsuits with Oracle could have been avoided as well. But hey, atleast they got Motorola's IP portfolio.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Cost out Oracle v. Google and get back to me.