5 ms·

OpenZFS can't be relicensed as GPL since FreeBSD won't be able to use it. Perhaps it could be dual-licensed, not sure, but that would be bad for FreeBSD as wel

by 4ad 9y ago

OpenZFS can't be relicensed as GPL since FreeBSD won't be able to use it. Perhaps it could be dual-licensed, not sure, but that would be bad for FreeBSD as well. If it would be integrated into the mainline Linux kernel, I don't believe FreeBSD could merge back subsequent ZFS changes done on the Linux side. If OpenZFS were relincensed and developed outside the mainline Linux tree (as it is now), FreeBSD would be able to get all changes, but it would still be annoying to actually use ZFS in Linux for the same reason it is annoying to use it now, even though the legal uncertainties would disappear.

insertnickname 9y ago
FreeBSD is OK with CDDL but not GPL?
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  Yeah, the CDDL is weak copyleft, meaning derived works don't need to be licensed CDDL. The GPL is strong copyleft, and could force all of FreeBSD to adopt the GPL.
  - LukeShu 9y ago
    To clarify that a bit: The CDDL is a per-file copyleft; you must provide the sources of the CDDL-licensed source files. The GPL is a per-program copyleft; you must provide the sources of the entire program if it contains GPL-licensed code; the source of the entire program effectively becomes GPL-licensed if you incorporate GPL-licensed code. If I made a closed derivative of the FreeBSD kernel, I'd have to provide the (CDDL) ZFS sources, but nothing else. If ZFS were GPL, I'd have to provide the sources to the entire kernel.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
simcop2387 9y ago
Instead of relicensing to gpl it could be relicensed to bsd or MIT both of which can be included in mainline Linux kernel and in bsd land too, without compromising future development edit: stupid phone autocorrect on the train this morning. s/not/MIT/
boomboomsubban 9y ago
>If OpenZFS were relincensed and developed outside the mainline Linux tree (as it is now), FreeBSD would be able to get all changes, but it would still be annoying to actually use ZFS in Linux for the same reason it is annoying to use it now, even though the legal uncertainties would disappear Couldn't it be developed outside the mainline Linux tree but still have improvements ported to the kernel? If I understand things correctly, thats basically how xorg handles drivers.
HankB99 9y ago
> ... but it would still be annoying to actually use ZFS in Linux for the same reason it is annoying to use it now. For those of us who are ignorant of what is annoying to use now (I raise my hand) can you elaborate? I'm fooling around with it on Debian Stretch and Ubuntu 16.04 LTS and haven't yet found it annoying (except for the challenge of finding where the various command line switches are documented...) I was particularly surprised to find it was an 'apt get' away on Debian, but I do have non-free repos enabled.
- rollcat 9y ago
  Running ZFS (boot&root) on both Ubuntu 17.10 on my home server and Debian Jessie on my laptop. The ZFS experience between the two is heaven and hell. Ubuntu just ships the zfs.ko and basically everything works 100% of the time, zero effort. Debian OTOH has to compile the module via DKMS for every minor kernel release... You better track those apt upgrades carefully, and run `dkms status` after each one, or you might end up having to drop into a rescue shell on next reboot, or try booting older kernels until you find the one that works. Also hopefully you didn't remove the last working kernel and/or zfs.ko. ZFS module upgrades are a roulette too (although none have failed... so far). Full disk encryption (including /boot) only adds to the complexity. I set this up in January 2017, at the time it seemed like the coolest thing on Earth. In retrospect, it was foolish. I wish I went with ext4 for /boot & /, unencrypted /boot, and left ZFS for /home & maybe /var/lib.
  - dmm 9y ago
    My debian install automatically builds the zfs module during each kernel upgrade.
  - rhinoceraptor 9y ago
    I have a ZFS on root Arch setup, unfortunately Gnome 3 is such garbage nowadays that I hardly ever use it. It still doesn’t do display scaling correctly for 4K and it just crashes all the time.
    - vetinari 9y ago
loeg 9y ago
There is plenty of dual GPL-BSD (or even MIT) licensed code in the Linux kernel that can be merged back and forth with FreeBSD. Examples are most Intel-contributed drivers (BSD+GPL) and graphics code (MIT).

by 4ad 9y ago

insertnickname 9y ago

FreeBSD is OK with CDDL but not GPL?

boomboomsubban 9y ago
Yeah, the CDDL is weak copyleft, meaning derived works don't need to be licensed CDDL. The GPL is strong copyleft, and could force all of FreeBSD to adopt the GPL.
- LukeShu 9y ago
  To clarify that a bit: The CDDL is a per-file copyleft; you must provide the sources of the CDDL-licensed source files. The GPL is a per-program copyleft; you must provide the sources of the entire program if it contains GPL-licensed code; the source of the entire program effectively becomes GPL-licensed if you incorporate GPL-licensed code. If I made a closed derivative of the FreeBSD kernel, I'd have to provide the (CDDL) ZFS sources, but nothing else. If ZFS were GPL, I'd have to provide the sources to the entire kernel.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

simcop2387 9y ago

Instead of relicensing to gpl it could be relicensed to bsd or MIT both of which can be included in mainline Linux kernel and in bsd land too, without compromising future development edit: stupid phone autocorrect on the train this morning. s/not/MIT/

boomboomsubban 9y ago

>If OpenZFS were relincensed and developed outside the mainline Linux tree (as it is now), FreeBSD would be able to get all changes, but it would still be annoying to actually use ZFS in Linux for the same reason it is annoying to use it now, even though the legal uncertainties would disappear Couldn't it be developed outside the mainline Linux tree but still have improvements ported to the kernel? If I understand things correctly, thats basically how xorg handles drivers.

HankB99 9y ago

> ... but it would still be annoying to actually use ZFS in Linux for the same reason it is annoying to use it now. For those of us who are ignorant of what is annoying to use now (I raise my hand) can you elaborate? I'm fooling around with it on Debian Stretch and Ubuntu 16.04 LTS and haven't yet found it annoying (except for the challenge of finding where the various command line switches are documented...) I was particularly surprised to find it was an 'apt get' away on Debian, but I do have non-free repos enabled.

rollcat 9y ago
Running ZFS (boot&root) on both Ubuntu 17.10 on my home server and Debian Jessie on my laptop. The ZFS experience between the two is heaven and hell. Ubuntu just ships the zfs.ko and basically everything works 100% of the time, zero effort. Debian OTOH has to compile the module via DKMS for every minor kernel release... You better track those apt upgrades carefully, and run `dkms status` after each one, or you might end up having to drop into a rescue shell on next reboot, or try booting older kernels until you find the one that works. Also hopefully you didn't remove the last working kernel and/or zfs.ko. ZFS module upgrades are a roulette too (although none have failed... so far). Full disk encryption (including /boot) only adds to the complexity. I set this up in January 2017, at the time it seemed like the coolest thing on Earth. In retrospect, it was foolish. I wish I went with ext4 for /boot & /, unencrypted /boot, and left ZFS for /home & maybe /var/lib.
- dmm 9y ago
  My debian install automatically builds the zfs module during each kernel upgrade.
- rhinoceraptor 9y ago
  I have a ZFS on root Arch setup, unfortunately Gnome 3 is such garbage nowadays that I hardly ever use it. It still doesn’t do display scaling correctly for 4K and it just crashes all the time.
  - vetinari 9y ago

loeg 9y ago

There is plenty of dual GPL-BSD (or even MIT) licensed code in the Linux kernel that can be merged back and forth with FreeBSD. Examples are most Intel-contributed drivers (BSD+GPL) and graphics code (MIT).