21 ms·

Can you expand? I'm no expert - use linux daily but have always just used distro default file system. Linus' reasons for not integrating seems pretty sensible

Can you expand? I'm no expert - use linux daily but have always just used distro default file system. Linus' reasons for not integrating seems pretty sensible to me. Oracle certainly has form on the litigation front.

shawnz 7y ago
Linus' reasons for not integrating ZFS are absolutely valid and it's no doubt that ZFS can never be included in the mainline kernel. There's absolutely no debate there. However the person he is replying to was not actually asking to have ZFS included in the mainline kernel. As noted above, that could never happen, and I believe that Linus is only bringing it up to deflect from the real issue. What they were actually asking is for Linux to revert a change that was made for no other reason than to hinder the use of ZFS. Linux includes a system which restricts what APIs are available to each module based on the license of the module. GPL modules get the full set of APIs whereas non-GPL modules get a reduced set. This is done strictly for political reasons and has no known legal basis as far as I'm aware. Not too long ago a change was made to reduce the visibility of a certain API required by ZFS so only GPL modules could use it. It's not clear why the change was made, but it was certainly not to improve the functionality of the kernel in any way. So the only plausible explanation to me is that it was done just to hinder the use of ZFS with Linux, which has been a hot political issue for some time now.
- supercanuck 7y ago
  >This is done strictly for political reasons and has no known legal basis as far as I'm aware. let me stop you right there. This being "Oracle," and its litigious nature, how can you truly be aware or sure? Linus is literally saying there is a legal basis.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    > This being "Oracle," and its litigious nature, how can you truly be aware or sure? The functionality I'm describing has absolutely nothing to do with ZFS or Oracle in any way. If you really think the reach of Oracle is so great, then why not block all Oracle code from ever running on the OS? That seems to me to be just as justified as this change.
    - supercanuck 7y ago
      Oracle sued Google for copying the same names of the functions.
      - crashbunny 7y ago
        And I believe oracle copied the amazon s3 api. I can't make a informed opinion but my uninformed gut feeling is oracle have done what they are suing google for having done.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
      > why not block all Oracle code from ever running on the OS? ...to be fair, I would probably run that module.
      - Nasrudith 7y ago
        I think that it would be a mandated module by many companies.
- throwaway6779 7y ago
  If I remember correctly, the reasoning for the GPL module stuff was/is, that if kernel modules integrate deeply with the kernel, they fall under gpl. So the GPL flag is basically a guideline of what kernel developers believe is safe to use from non gpl-compatible modules
  - shawnz 7y ago
    This is the commonly recited argument but I don't believe it was ever proven to be legally necessary. Furthermore, even if it was, it's not clear what level of integration is "too deep". So in practice, it's just a way for kernel developers to add political restrictions as they see fit.
    - bcrosby95 7y ago
      Proven legally necessary, as in, a court telling them to stop doing something? I'm pretty sure they don't want it to get to that point.
      - shawnz 7y ago
        Proven legally necessary, as in, a court ever telling anyone in that situation to stop doing it. Or even to start doing it in the first place. There's just no legal justification behind it whatsoever.
    - teddyuk 7y ago
      Surely the kernel developers can do whatever the hell they like. If you don’t like that don’t use it.
    - HorstG 7y ago
      "Proven" is a maybe impossible standard: Kernel devs hint at the GPLonly exports having been useful in certain cases they prefer not to discuss on a ML. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190110131132.GC20217@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190110131132.GC20217@kroah.co... One can interpret this as something legally significant, or an embarrassing private anecdote, or nothing substantial at all, maybe even just talk. However, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Not the least since they could be the ones against Oracle's legal dept...

shawnz 7y ago

Linus' reasons for not integrating ZFS are absolutely valid and it's no doubt that ZFS can never be included in the mainline kernel. There's absolutely no debate there. However the person he is replying to was not actually asking to have ZFS included in the mainline kernel. As noted above, that could never happen, and I believe that Linus is only bringing it up to deflect from the real issue. What they were actually asking is for Linux to revert a change that was made for no other reason than to hinder the use of ZFS. Linux includes a system which restricts what APIs are available to each module based on the license of the module. GPL modules get the full set of APIs whereas non-GPL modules get a reduced set. This is done strictly for political reasons and has no known legal basis as far as I'm aware. Not too long ago a change was made to reduce the visibility of a certain API required by ZFS so only GPL modules could use it. It's not clear why the change was made, but it was certainly not to improve the functionality of the kernel in any way. So the only plausible explanation to me is that it was done just to hinder the use of ZFS with Linux, which has been a hot political issue for some time now.

supercanuck 7y ago
>This is done strictly for political reasons and has no known legal basis as far as I'm aware. let me stop you right there. This being "Oracle," and its litigious nature, how can you truly be aware or sure? Linus is literally saying there is a legal basis.
- shawnz 7y ago
  > This being "Oracle," and its litigious nature, how can you truly be aware or sure? The functionality I'm describing has absolutely nothing to do with ZFS or Oracle in any way. If you really think the reach of Oracle is so great, then why not block all Oracle code from ever running on the OS? That seems to me to be just as justified as this change.
  - supercanuck 7y ago
    Oracle sued Google for copying the same names of the functions.
    - crashbunny 7y ago
      And I believe oracle copied the amazon s3 api. I can't make a informed opinion but my uninformed gut feeling is oracle have done what they are suing google for having done.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    > why not block all Oracle code from ever running on the OS? ...to be fair, I would probably run that module.
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      I think that it would be a mandated module by many companies.
throwaway6779 7y ago
If I remember correctly, the reasoning for the GPL module stuff was/is, that if kernel modules integrate deeply with the kernel, they fall under gpl. So the GPL flag is basically a guideline of what kernel developers believe is safe to use from non gpl-compatible modules
- shawnz 7y ago
  This is the commonly recited argument but I don't believe it was ever proven to be legally necessary. Furthermore, even if it was, it's not clear what level of integration is "too deep". So in practice, it's just a way for kernel developers to add political restrictions as they see fit.
  - bcrosby95 7y ago
    Proven legally necessary, as in, a court telling them to stop doing something? I'm pretty sure they don't want it to get to that point.
    - shawnz 7y ago
      Proven legally necessary, as in, a court ever telling anyone in that situation to stop doing it. Or even to start doing it in the first place. There's just no legal justification behind it whatsoever.
  - teddyuk 7y ago
    Surely the kernel developers can do whatever the hell they like. If you don’t like that don’t use it.
  - HorstG 7y ago
    "Proven" is a maybe impossible standard: Kernel devs hint at the GPLonly exports having been useful in certain cases they prefer not to discuss on a ML. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190110131132.GC20217@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190110131132.GC20217@kroah.co... One can interpret this as something legally significant, or an embarrassing private anecdote, or nothing substantial at all, maybe even just talk. However, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Not the least since they could be the ones against Oracle's legal dept...