6 ms·

Oh boy! Where do we even begin? Let's start out with what the article spends the most time on: licensing. This is a giant self-own and a very long winded way

Oh boy! Where do we even begin? Let's start out with what the article spends the most time on: licensing. This is a giant self-own and a very long winded way of saying "Linux will ignore the best implementation of a thing because we/they don't like the license." That's a choice, not a law of the universe. It's perhaps also a canonical example of spite-induced nose cutting. Let's see... other things... oh! Suggesting mdadm is better than well... anything... is a giant red flag to me. No thanks. Dismissing checksums as unnecessary? Okay, now I think they're just trolling. Years of running ZFS teach you that bits flip, a lot... and you have no realistic recourse without block level checksums.

thayne 5y ago
> "Linux will ignore the best implementation of a thing because we/they don't like the license." > That's a choice, not a law of the universe. It's perhaps also a canonical example of spite-induced nose cutting It isn't because they don't like the license. The licenses of linux and zfs are incompatible, so zfs is out of tree and that leads to technical problems. No, it isn't a law of the universe, but it is the law of the United States at least, and probably many other countries as well.
- 7steps2much 5y ago
  To be fair, they kind of did that to themselves with the GPL. BSD for example has no problems whatsoever with including ZFS. > probably many other countries as well Maybe. Enforceability of the GPL outside of the US is flaky, so whether or not this specific case would matter is always up to the courts to decide.
  - thayne 5y ago
    > To be fair, they kind of did that to themselves with the GPL Well at this point, even if they wanted to change the license of Linux, they probably couldn't. Every contributor would have to agree to it, which is unlikely to happen, even if you ignore the logistics of asking everyone.
yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
> That's a choice Not meaningfully; Linux can't change away from GPLv2 (too many copyright owners), and ZFS can never change from CDDL (again, too many owners, including Oracle), and those licenses are incompatible. The only way Linux could make it work is by freezing all the kernel APIs that ZFS uses, and while that is a choice, it would be an extremely expensive choice to give up being able to refactor anything that it touched.
- chalst 5y ago
  I would agree with insaneirish, if it was anybody but Oracle who held the CDDL-licensed code (I think IBM have ZFS-relevant patents, but no CDDL code in the OpenZFS codebase). With anyone else, I'd say the legal risks were overwrought; we're talking two subtly mismatched copyleft licenses, so the idea that there is damage done by combing the codebases is legally weird and this kind of cursed-earth legal strategy is insane from a market giant. But as a wise man once said, don't anthropomorphise Oracle.
  - trasz 5y ago
    Except Oracle is not the danger here: the license incompatibility is about GPL, not CDDL. I don’t think Oracle is going to sue anyone for GPL violation. And if it does, it could do that without CDDL in the picture.
    - mbreese 5y ago
      Oracle also has a Linux distribution. So, I wouldn’t count them out as suing over a GPL/CDDL issue. I’d love to know who the harmed party would be in a lawsuit like that, but I’m sure that there would be no winners.
      - p_l 5y ago
        Their main approach would be pretty much the same as with Software Freedom Conservancy vs Canonical, afaik.
  - 5y ago
DarylZero 5y ago
> This is a giant self-own and a very long winded way of saying "Linux will ignore the best implementation of a thing because we/they don't like the license." It has nothing to do with "dislike." It's illegal to put ZFS into the Linux kernel. Just as illegal as putting a pirate copy of Microsoft's NTFS in there. This is because of the choice of license by the owners of ZFS code! You're blaming Linux but Linux license was chosen long before ZFS even existed. ZFS license was specifically chosen for the purpose of keeping code out of Linux.
- nix23 5y ago
  >It's illegal to put ZFS into the Linux kernel. No it's not, and you don't have to put it into the kernel. >This is because of the choice of license by the owners of ZFS code! Everyone else with a real free license can do it (BSD), so i would suggest that GPL is the problem and not the other way around. >ZFS license was specifically chosen for the purpose of keeping code out of Linux Good, it should no go into that rotting mammoth-pile of code.
- p_l 5y ago
  The incompatibility is on the GPL side, not CDDL side, and even there it's unclear because of the "derived work" term involved. CDDL was created because GPL would artificially limit inclusion in other projects, and while views on its compatibility with GPL were split at Sun (some employees, even legal counsel if one believes claims on this very site, expected CDDL code to be possible for inclusion in GPLv2 projects like Linux, some made rather public remarks on purposeful incompatibility but without anything to support it). And no, it's not illegal to put ZFS into linux kernel, because GPLv2 applies only on distribution.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    > it's not illegal to put ZFS into linux kernel, because GPLv2 applies only on distribution. Oh, then I guess it _IS_ in the Linux kernel already. You're not being serious.
    - p_l 5y ago

thayne 5y ago

> "Linux will ignore the best implementation of a thing because we/they don't like the license." > That's a choice, not a law of the universe. It's perhaps also a canonical example of spite-induced nose cutting It isn't because they don't like the license. The licenses of linux and zfs are incompatible, so zfs is out of tree and that leads to technical problems. No, it isn't a law of the universe, but it is the law of the United States at least, and probably many other countries as well.

7steps2much 5y ago
To be fair, they kind of did that to themselves with the GPL. BSD for example has no problems whatsoever with including ZFS. > probably many other countries as well Maybe. Enforceability of the GPL outside of the US is flaky, so whether or not this specific case would matter is always up to the courts to decide.
- thayne 5y ago
  > To be fair, they kind of did that to themselves with the GPL Well at this point, even if they wanted to change the license of Linux, they probably couldn't. Every contributor would have to agree to it, which is unlikely to happen, even if you ignore the logistics of asking everyone.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago

> That's a choice Not meaningfully; Linux can't change away from GPLv2 (too many copyright owners), and ZFS can never change from CDDL (again, too many owners, including Oracle), and those licenses are incompatible. The only way Linux could make it work is by freezing all the kernel APIs that ZFS uses, and while that is a choice, it would be an extremely expensive choice to give up being able to refactor anything that it touched.

chalst 5y ago
I would agree with insaneirish, if it was anybody but Oracle who held the CDDL-licensed code (I think IBM have ZFS-relevant patents, but no CDDL code in the OpenZFS codebase). With anyone else, I'd say the legal risks were overwrought; we're talking two subtly mismatched copyleft licenses, so the idea that there is damage done by combing the codebases is legally weird and this kind of cursed-earth legal strategy is insane from a market giant. But as a wise man once said, don't anthropomorphise Oracle.
- trasz 5y ago
  Except Oracle is not the danger here: the license incompatibility is about GPL, not CDDL. I don’t think Oracle is going to sue anyone for GPL violation. And if it does, it could do that without CDDL in the picture.
  - mbreese 5y ago
    Oracle also has a Linux distribution. So, I wouldn’t count them out as suing over a GPL/CDDL issue. I’d love to know who the harmed party would be in a lawsuit like that, but I’m sure that there would be no winners.
    - p_l 5y ago
      Their main approach would be pretty much the same as with Software Freedom Conservancy vs Canonical, afaik.
- 5y ago

DarylZero 5y ago

> This is a giant self-own and a very long winded way of saying "Linux will ignore the best implementation of a thing because we/they don't like the license." It has nothing to do with "dislike." It's illegal to put ZFS into the Linux kernel. Just as illegal as putting a pirate copy of Microsoft's NTFS in there. This is because of the choice of license by the owners of ZFS code! You're blaming Linux but Linux license was chosen long before ZFS even existed. ZFS license was specifically chosen for the purpose of keeping code out of Linux.

nix23 5y ago
>It's illegal to put ZFS into the Linux kernel. No it's not, and you don't have to put it into the kernel. >This is because of the choice of license by the owners of ZFS code! Everyone else with a real free license can do it (BSD), so i would suggest that GPL is the problem and not the other way around. >ZFS license was specifically chosen for the purpose of keeping code out of Linux Good, it should no go into that rotting mammoth-pile of code.
p_l 5y ago
The incompatibility is on the GPL side, not CDDL side, and even there it's unclear because of the "derived work" term involved. CDDL was created because GPL would artificially limit inclusion in other projects, and while views on its compatibility with GPL were split at Sun (some employees, even legal counsel if one believes claims on this very site, expected CDDL code to be possible for inclusion in GPLv2 projects like Linux, some made rather public remarks on purposeful incompatibility but without anything to support it). And no, it's not illegal to put ZFS into linux kernel, because GPLv2 applies only on distribution.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  > it's not illegal to put ZFS into linux kernel, because GPLv2 applies only on distribution. Oh, then I guess it _IS_ in the Linux kernel already. You're not being serious.
  - p_l 5y ago