4 ms·

I'm not sure what you mean by ZFS being such a big problem, the CDDL license is considered incompatible and therefore OpenZFS isn't going to be considered for u

I'm not sure what you mean by ZFS being such a big problem, the CDDL license is considered incompatible and therefore OpenZFS isn't going to be considered for upstreaming. Also, most of OpenZFS development is driven by companies that use it with the Linux kernel, so clearly there isn't that much of a problem with using OpenZFS and Linux. It's pretty similar to how the BSDs may not allow something in base due to licensing, but will allow it in ports/pkg. If you're asking why OpenZFS is not hosted kernel.org, why would kernel.org host an out of tree kernel module that is never going to be upstreamed? Firmware on the other hand is needed to initialize and use a ton of hardware, and so it makes sense to have a central repository for vendors to submit required firmware. More importantly, why would the OpenZFS community even want to be on kernel.org when they support multiple operating systems and have also not pushed for upstreaming? I really don't think OpenZFS is being treated any better or worse than other license-incompatible kernel modules. I just don't see how you can characterize it as zealtory any more so than FreeBSD wanting to remove all GPL'd software from base [1], or OpenBSD sticking with Clang 8 in base because of the switch to the Apache 2.0 license [2]. It's pretty normal for software projects to care about licensing. [1] https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase [2] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.html https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300....

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
Of course ZFS can't be upstreamed (anymore than assorted blobs), but Linux devs have expressed outright animosity towards ZFS: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ZFS-On-Linux-5.0-Problem https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ZFS-On-L... > My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant. Sun explicitly did not want their code to work on Linux, so why would we do extra work to get their code to work properly?
- morning_gelato 6y ago
  Sure, but that's been Greg KH's stance on pretty much every kernel module that has no chance of going upstream [1]. "Simple, get your kernel driver into the main kernel tree (remember we are talking about drivers released under a GPL-compatible license here, if your code doesn't fall under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, you leech)." Also in the post you are citing, the technical change makes no reference to ZFS [2] or implies that the motivation is to break out of tree modules. The upstream community simply doesn't even consider out of tree projects when making changes. Whether that's good or bad is another discussion, but I don't see anything that's specific to ZFS. I should also note that to my knowledge, OpenZFS (formerly ZoL) was the only (open source) ZFS implementation that utilized vectorized checksums. At the very least FreeBSD's in-tree ZFS did not have vectorized checksums, as that was listed as one of the features FreeBSD would gain by moving to OpenZFS [3]. So the cited change didn't break ZFS, it just meant those checksums weren't as fast as they used to be. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-... [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=12209993e98c5fa1855c467f22a24e3d5b8be205 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... [3] https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-December/072422.html https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-Dec...
  - nix23 6y ago
    >good luck, you are on your own here, you leech Man i just love that warm, lovely atmosphere in that project..and thats not even the leader....ahem sorry dictator (and he is even proud of that)
  - snvzz 6y ago
    Linux just loves good filesystems (not). The way they are handling ZFS reminds me of the way they handled Reiser4, Tux3 and Reiserfs. Basically, any filesystem not made by the filesystem establishment (and their friends) gets bullied. Of course, the only filesystems they can make are all crap like ext4 and btrfs. Fortunately, there's the BSDs, and there's the likes of HAMMER2 from Dragonfly. And, with seL4[0], Fuchsia and HarmonyOS making progress, Linux is going to fall into irrelevance, sooner than most think. Good riddance. [0]: https://sel4.systems/About/seL4-whitepaper.pdf https://sel4.systems/About/seL4-whitepaper.pdf
    - morning_gelato 6y ago
      > The way they are handling ZFS reminds me of the way they handled Reiser4, Tux3 and Reiserfs. The latter file systems were trying to be upstreamed and ultimately did not succeed, I don't know of any interest or attempts at upstreaming ZFS. Their handling of ZFS reminds me how they handle any kernel module that will never be upstream, not because some file system establishment sees it as a threat. > Basically, any filesystem not made by the filesystem establishment (and their friends) gets bullied. What/who is the "establishment (and their friends)"? f2fs from Samsung was added in 3.8, erofs from Huawei was added in 5.4, and exfat from Samsung was added in 5.7. Before those file systems were upstreamed I don't think many people would list Samsung and Huawei as part of the filesystem "establishment".
      - nix23 6y ago
        >What/who is the "establishment (and their friends)"? Maybe he thinks of Linux Foundation Platinum Members ;) https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ XFS is actually really good, but Linux definitely need's a check-summing COW Filesystem that's usable.
nix23 6y ago
>CDDL license is considered incompatible Well NO its not, that's pure FUD from the FSF: https://zonena.me/2019/01/the-cddl-is-not-incompatible-with-the-gpl/ https://zonena.me/2019/01/the-cddl-is-not-incompatible-with-... >If you're asking why OpenZFS is not hosted kernel.org No im asking why Linus thinks its acceptable to distribute proprietary Firmware, but needs a personal letter from Lord Elison and ZFS needs to be GPL'd....otherwise just don't use it. >I just don't see how you can characterize it as zealtory any more so than FreeBSD wanting to remove all GPL'd software from base That is because you can close and still distribute BSD licensed Software, but not when it contains GPL'd Software, thats why you dont want it in the Base-System, no one has something against GPL there, but FreeBSD wants to distribute a complete Operating-system under the BSD (or compatible like Apache/MIT etc) License.
- morning_gelato 6y ago
  > Well NO its not, that's pure FUD from the FSF: What matters is if the upstream Linux community is comfortable enough with the license to allow it upstream, which is why I said "considered". > No im asking why Linus thinks its acceptable to distribute proprietary Firmware, but needs a personal letter from Lord Elison and ZFS needs to be GPL'd....otherwise just don't use it. There's a big difference between these two things. The first is redistributing proprietary firmware in a completely separate repository from the Linux source code. All firmware included in the linux-firmware repository is explicitly allowed to be redistributed [1], which is why they do not have fears about distributing those binary files. I'll quote the readme: "If your commit adds new firmware, it must update the WHENCE file to clearly state the license under which the firmware is available, and that it is redistributable." The second is introducing CDDL licensed code into a GPLv2 project, where that project considers the CDDL license to be incompatible, along with worries (however unfounded) about a notoriously litigious company. > That is because you can close and still distribute BSD licensed Software, but not when it contains GPL'd Software, thats why you dont want it in the Base-System, no one has something against GPL there, but FreeBSD wants to distribute a complete Operating-system under the BSD License. Yes the FreeBSD community does not want GPL code in the base system as it prevents them from from distributing a 100% permissively licensed system, and it's understandable why that is a goal. But how is that meaningfully different than the Linux community not wanting code with a license they feel is incompatible with their goals? [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git/tree/README#n18 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/lin...

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago

Of course ZFS can't be upstreamed (anymore than assorted blobs), but Linux devs have expressed outright animosity towards ZFS: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ZFS-On-Linux-5.0-Problem https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ZFS-On-L... > My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant. Sun explicitly did not want their code to work on Linux, so why would we do extra work to get their code to work properly?

morning_gelato 6y ago
Sure, but that's been Greg KH's stance on pretty much every kernel module that has no chance of going upstream [1]. "Simple, get your kernel driver into the main kernel tree (remember we are talking about drivers released under a GPL-compatible license here, if your code doesn't fall under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, you leech)." Also in the post you are citing, the technical change makes no reference to ZFS [2] or implies that the motivation is to break out of tree modules. The upstream community simply doesn't even consider out of tree projects when making changes. Whether that's good or bad is another discussion, but I don't see anything that's specific to ZFS. I should also note that to my knowledge, OpenZFS (formerly ZoL) was the only (open source) ZFS implementation that utilized vectorized checksums. At the very least FreeBSD's in-tree ZFS did not have vectorized checksums, as that was listed as one of the features FreeBSD would gain by moving to OpenZFS [3]. So the cited change didn't break ZFS, it just meant those checksums weren't as fast as they used to be. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-... [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=12209993e98c5fa1855c467f22a24e3d5b8be205 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... [3] https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-December/072422.html https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-Dec...
- nix23 6y ago
  >good luck, you are on your own here, you leech Man i just love that warm, lovely atmosphere in that project..and thats not even the leader....ahem sorry dictator (and he is even proud of that)
- snvzz 6y ago
  Linux just loves good filesystems (not). The way they are handling ZFS reminds me of the way they handled Reiser4, Tux3 and Reiserfs. Basically, any filesystem not made by the filesystem establishment (and their friends) gets bullied. Of course, the only filesystems they can make are all crap like ext4 and btrfs. Fortunately, there's the BSDs, and there's the likes of HAMMER2 from Dragonfly. And, with seL4[0], Fuchsia and HarmonyOS making progress, Linux is going to fall into irrelevance, sooner than most think. Good riddance. [0]: https://sel4.systems/About/seL4-whitepaper.pdf https://sel4.systems/About/seL4-whitepaper.pdf
  - morning_gelato 6y ago
    > The way they are handling ZFS reminds me of the way they handled Reiser4, Tux3 and Reiserfs. The latter file systems were trying to be upstreamed and ultimately did not succeed, I don't know of any interest or attempts at upstreaming ZFS. Their handling of ZFS reminds me how they handle any kernel module that will never be upstream, not because some file system establishment sees it as a threat. > Basically, any filesystem not made by the filesystem establishment (and their friends) gets bullied. What/who is the "establishment (and their friends)"? f2fs from Samsung was added in 3.8, erofs from Huawei was added in 5.4, and exfat from Samsung was added in 5.7. Before those file systems were upstreamed I don't think many people would list Samsung and Huawei as part of the filesystem "establishment".
    - nix23 6y ago
      >What/who is the "establishment (and their friends)"? Maybe he thinks of Linux Foundation Platinum Members ;) https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ XFS is actually really good, but Linux definitely need's a check-summing COW Filesystem that's usable.

nix23 6y ago

>CDDL license is considered incompatible Well NO its not, that's pure FUD from the FSF: https://zonena.me/2019/01/the-cddl-is-not-incompatible-with-the-gpl/ https://zonena.me/2019/01/the-cddl-is-not-incompatible-with-... >If you're asking why OpenZFS is not hosted kernel.org No im asking why Linus thinks its acceptable to distribute proprietary Firmware, but needs a personal letter from Lord Elison and ZFS needs to be GPL'd....otherwise just don't use it. >I just don't see how you can characterize it as zealtory any more so than FreeBSD wanting to remove all GPL'd software from base That is because you can close and still distribute BSD licensed Software, but not when it contains GPL'd Software, thats why you dont want it in the Base-System, no one has something against GPL there, but FreeBSD wants to distribute a complete Operating-system under the BSD (or compatible like Apache/MIT etc) License.

morning_gelato 6y ago
> Well NO its not, that's pure FUD from the FSF: What matters is if the upstream Linux community is comfortable enough with the license to allow it upstream, which is why I said "considered". > No im asking why Linus thinks its acceptable to distribute proprietary Firmware, but needs a personal letter from Lord Elison and ZFS needs to be GPL'd....otherwise just don't use it. There's a big difference between these two things. The first is redistributing proprietary firmware in a completely separate repository from the Linux source code. All firmware included in the linux-firmware repository is explicitly allowed to be redistributed [1], which is why they do not have fears about distributing those binary files. I'll quote the readme: "If your commit adds new firmware, it must update the WHENCE file to clearly state the license under which the firmware is available, and that it is redistributable." The second is introducing CDDL licensed code into a GPLv2 project, where that project considers the CDDL license to be incompatible, along with worries (however unfounded) about a notoriously litigious company. > That is because you can close and still distribute BSD licensed Software, but not when it contains GPL'd Software, thats why you dont want it in the Base-System, no one has something against GPL there, but FreeBSD wants to distribute a complete Operating-system under the BSD License. Yes the FreeBSD community does not want GPL code in the base system as it prevents them from from distributing a 100% permissively licensed system, and it's understandable why that is a goal. But how is that meaningfully different than the Linux community not wanting code with a license they feel is incompatible with their goals? [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git/tree/README#n18 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/lin...