3 ms·
It's kind of dishonest to have a section "Out-of-tree and will never be mainlined" that discusses Debian and Red Hat but not Ubuntu, who have bitten the bullet
by chalst 5y ago
It's kind of dishonest to have a section "Out-of-tree and will never be mainlined" that discusses Debian and Red Hat but not Ubuntu, who have bitten the bullet of doing exactly this in-kernel maintenance the article claims doesn't exist. (Or is it ignorance? Did the author not know of this support?).
Cf. https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/ryaaqo/zfs_on_debian_vs_ubuntu/ https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/ryaaqo/zfs_on_debian_v...
- ylyn 5y agoDid you read the article? > Ubuntu ships ZFS as part of the kernel, not even as a separate loadable module. This redistribution of a combined CDDL/GPLv2 work is probably illegal.
- chalst 5y agoI did and I seem to have had a reading comprehension failure and skipped that brief, crystal-clear paragraph. Ouch! That criticism retracted, although if the author suggests Ubuntu users are under threat here, that seems kind of fanciful to me. And while Oracle are hyperaggressive, I'm struggling to see that even they would think it in their interests to go after Canonical itself.
- p_l 5y agoOracle has no ground to stand on wrt to OpenZFS, the only legal attacks are possible from GPL side.
- mustache_kimono 5y agoThis is a really good point. The only GPL remedy expressly excludes attacks on mere users.
- Macha 5y agoThey bought Sun, partly because they saw a revenue opportunity to go after Java's largest end user deployment on Android devices. I'm shocked they haven't gone after Canonical yet, to be honest.
- p_l 5y agoThe only arguments they would have are the same as with existing SFC vs Canonical court case (SFC sued Canonical on behalf of few Linux kernel developers)