5 ms·

Red Hat previously added btrfs to RHEL as a "Technology Preview", only to later remove it (they didn't really have anyone left devoting resources to it, IIRC),

Red Hat previously added btrfs to RHEL as a "Technology Preview", only to later remove it (they didn't really have anyone left devoting resources to it, IIRC), deciding to focus on stratis / VDO instead [0]. They do have several XFS folks, though (or did, last I knew). FWIW, SUSE is the Enterprise Linux vendor that has went "all in" on btrfs. --- Two semi-related, personal thoughts: 1. btrfs today feels a lot like reiserfs did (going on / nearly) 20 years ago. 2. I expect Oracle to -- at some point -- integrate ZFS into Oracle (Enterprise) Linux. That seems like a great way for them to win over some "converts" from RHEL. --- [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907771

gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
Oracle would need to release another version of ZFS than the current ZFS on Linux to avoid the license issues...
- AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
  Oracle owns ZFS. Or, rather, it bought Sun, which was the company which originally wrote ZFS. So, it doesn't really need to worry about the licensing issues.
- hnlmorg 6y ago
  @AlgorithmicTime you've been shadow banned it seems but you did raise a point that is worth expanding on: > Oracle owns ZFS. Or, rather, it bought Sun, which was the company which originally wrote ZFS. So, it doesn't really need to worry about the licensing issues. Oracle owning ZFS doesn't magically absolve them of risk however it does reduce the risk. But with ZFS being open source, another contributor might have a claim if Oracle were to breach the CDDL license with code written by said contributor (similar to the SCO vs UNIX lawsuits of yesteryear). To get around this Oracle would need to contact all 3rd party contributors and get the to agree to a license change. This would, in all practicality, then be reflected in a new release (like the GP suggested). However it is now even more complicated than that because OpenZFS (which is what Linux runs) has diverged from ZFS (which Oracle maintain). So while Oracle would need to agree to any changes in the licensing of OpenZFS (as there's still Oracle code present in OpenZFS), Oracle are not the ones maintaining it and nor could they ship their own version of ZFS as Linux kernel modules to answer any concerns with either OpenZFS licensing nor compatibility with other Linuxes running OpenZFS.
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
    This is all true. But also the numerous copyright holders of the Linux kernel could also choose to sue.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      One assumes that if Oracle decided to do its ZFS on Linux, it would do so under an actual compatible license. Since Oracle owns Oracle's ZFS, they can just release it under GPLv2 (or MIT, BSD, whatever) and not be even potentially doing anything that would let someone sue them.
      - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
        Please refer to my OP on the subject..
      - hnlmorg 6y ago
        > they can just release it under GPLv2 There is no "just" in "just release it under [another license]". I'd written a detailed rebuttal of why it's not that simple in the GP post to yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24331156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24331156
        yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
        I did forget the amount of effort to port OracleZFS to work with Linux, true, but I stand by the claim that they could release their own ZFS code under any license they want. They wouldn't have to "contact all 3rd party contributors and get the to agree to a license change", because Sun only took code that was legally signed over to them. The resulting OracleZFS would be missing all OpenZFS code (because indeed that code would only be available under the CDDL), but insofar as that it was missing code that Oracle didn't own it could be licensed at will. This would leave them having to invest the effort to port OracleZFS to run in Linux, which is a valid argument against them taking this approach.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago

gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago

Oracle would need to release another version of ZFS than the current ZFS on Linux to avoid the license issues...

AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
Oracle owns ZFS. Or, rather, it bought Sun, which was the company which originally wrote ZFS. So, it doesn't really need to worry about the licensing issues.
hnlmorg 6y ago
@AlgorithmicTime you've been shadow banned it seems but you did raise a point that is worth expanding on: > Oracle owns ZFS. Or, rather, it bought Sun, which was the company which originally wrote ZFS. So, it doesn't really need to worry about the licensing issues. Oracle owning ZFS doesn't magically absolve them of risk however it does reduce the risk. But with ZFS being open source, another contributor might have a claim if Oracle were to breach the CDDL license with code written by said contributor (similar to the SCO vs UNIX lawsuits of yesteryear). To get around this Oracle would need to contact all 3rd party contributors and get the to agree to a license change. This would, in all practicality, then be reflected in a new release (like the GP suggested). However it is now even more complicated than that because OpenZFS (which is what Linux runs) has diverged from ZFS (which Oracle maintain). So while Oracle would need to agree to any changes in the licensing of OpenZFS (as there's still Oracle code present in OpenZFS), Oracle are not the ones maintaining it and nor could they ship their own version of ZFS as Linux kernel modules to answer any concerns with either OpenZFS licensing nor compatibility with other Linuxes running OpenZFS.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
  This is all true. But also the numerous copyright holders of the Linux kernel could also choose to sue.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    One assumes that if Oracle decided to do its ZFS on Linux, it would do so under an actual compatible license. Since Oracle owns Oracle's ZFS, they can just release it under GPLv2 (or MIT, BSD, whatever) and not be even potentially doing anything that would let someone sue them.
    - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
      Please refer to my OP on the subject..
    - hnlmorg 6y ago
      > they can just release it under GPLv2 There is no "just" in "just release it under [another license]". I'd written a detailed rebuttal of why it's not that simple in the GP post to yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24331156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24331156
      - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
        I did forget the amount of effort to port OracleZFS to work with Linux, true, but I stand by the claim that they could release their own ZFS code under any license they want. They wouldn't have to "contact all 3rd party contributors and get the to agree to a license change", because Sun only took code that was legally signed over to them. The resulting OracleZFS would be missing all OpenZFS code (because indeed that code would only be available under the CDDL), but insofar as that it was missing code that Oracle didn't own it could be licensed at will. This would leave them having to invest the effort to port OracleZFS to run in Linux, which is a valid argument against them taking this approach.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago