7 ms·

ZFS isn't lost. ZFS on Illumos (Smartos) and FreeBSD is alive and well.

by nosequel 9y ago

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.
        belorn 9y ago
        I doubt (given what I heard from lawyers on the topic) that the legal system cares if a work has static or dynamic linking technology. What matters are the legal concepts which previous legal cases have been settled on. Intent by everyone involved such as the author, the accused and the law writer. If the author intended that the work is used in one way, and the accused knew this but decided to go against it, then that carries a lot of weight. Similar, if the law writer intended the law to address a specific situation, that also carries weight. Precedence from cases that involve derivate work. There is a fuzzy line when two works merge to create a third. Music has a large legal history, parts which are contradicting itself. And last there is the law itself. Modifying for example is a explicit exclusive right in some places (such as the US). One case involved a person who bought a painting, cut it down into squares, and rearranged them into a mosaic version. The painter sued and won the case, arguing exclusive right to create modifications. If something is binary or source code should irrelevant to the question about if the "work" has been modified based on what the author originally created.
    - ece 9y ago
      You're wrong, and Apple made a mistake: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/zfs-the-other-new-apple-file-system-that-almost-was-until-it-wasnt/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/zfs-the-other-new-ap... From the article: "Finally, and perhaps most significantly, personal egos and NIH (not invented here) syndrome certainly played a part. I'm told by folks who worked at Apple at the time that certain leads and managers preferred to build their own stuff rather than adopting external technology, even technology that was best of breed. They pitched their own project, an Apple project that would bring modern filesystem technologies to Mac OS X. The design center for ZFS was servers, not laptops—and certainly not phones, tablets, and watches—and the argument was likely that it would be better to start from scratch than adapt ZFS. Combined with the uncertainty above and, I'm told, no shortage of political savvy, the anti-ZFS arguments carried the day. Licensing FUD was thrown into the mix; even today folks at Apple see the ZFS license as nefarious and toxic in some way, whereas the DTrace license works just fine for them. Note that both use the same license with the same grants and same restrictions." It's still not too late for Linux to merge ZFS: https://youtu.be/6F9bscdqRpo?t=5m14s https://youtu.be/6F9bscdqRpo?t=5m14s
    - cyphar 9y ago
      That's FUD. Apple actually did have a ZFS port for the Mac they were working on. And they successfully ported DTrace way back when as well (you can still use it today). I expect that the lawyers wouldn't have allowed anyone to work on a port of a project with an "IP shadow". The most likely reasons were probably either NIH, or worries about the greedy resource requirements of ZFS.
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.

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.
        belorn 9y ago
        I doubt (given what I heard from lawyers on the topic) that the legal system cares if a work has static or dynamic linking technology. What matters are the legal concepts which previous legal cases have been settled on. Intent by everyone involved such as the author, the accused and the law writer. If the author intended that the work is used in one way, and the accused knew this but decided to go against it, then that carries a lot of weight. Similar, if the law writer intended the law to address a specific situation, that also carries weight. Precedence from cases that involve derivate work. There is a fuzzy line when two works merge to create a third. Music has a large legal history, parts which are contradicting itself. And last there is the law itself. Modifying for example is a explicit exclusive right in some places (such as the US). One case involved a person who bought a painting, cut it down into squares, and rearranged them into a mosaic version. The painter sued and won the case, arguing exclusive right to create modifications. If something is binary or source code should irrelevant to the question about if the "work" has been modified based on what the author originally created.
  - ece 9y ago
    You're wrong, and Apple made a mistake: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/zfs-the-other-new-apple-file-system-that-almost-was-until-it-wasnt/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/zfs-the-other-new-ap... From the article: "Finally, and perhaps most significantly, personal egos and NIH (not invented here) syndrome certainly played a part. I'm told by folks who worked at Apple at the time that certain leads and managers preferred to build their own stuff rather than adopting external technology, even technology that was best of breed. They pitched their own project, an Apple project that would bring modern filesystem technologies to Mac OS X. The design center for ZFS was servers, not laptops—and certainly not phones, tablets, and watches—and the argument was likely that it would be better to start from scratch than adapt ZFS. Combined with the uncertainty above and, I'm told, no shortage of political savvy, the anti-ZFS arguments carried the day. Licensing FUD was thrown into the mix; even today folks at Apple see the ZFS license as nefarious and toxic in some way, whereas the DTrace license works just fine for them. Note that both use the same license with the same grants and same restrictions." It's still not too late for Linux to merge ZFS: https://youtu.be/6F9bscdqRpo?t=5m14s https://youtu.be/6F9bscdqRpo?t=5m14s
  - cyphar 9y ago
    That's FUD. Apple actually did have a ZFS port for the Mac they were working on. And they successfully ported DTrace way back when as well (you can still use it today). I expect that the lawyers wouldn't have allowed anyone to work on a port of a project with an "IP shadow". The most likely reasons were probably either NIH, or worries about the greedy resource requirements of ZFS.

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.