3 ms·

> 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."

> 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
    No, I'm deadly serious. GPLv2 vs CDDL is a complex situation with somewhat easy results (somewhat because there are divergent opinions - so far those opinions only got clicks in media and nothing in court). It's hard to determine whether GPLv2 would apply on distribution and on what kind of distribution, even. But your comparison with "pirated NTFS driver" was completely out of whack, suggesting that it's illegal to even do it personally (as would be the case with "pirated NTFS driver"). GPLv2 applies only on distribution. Always did, Always will.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      By "not being serious" I mean that what you're saying lacks even internal consistency.

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
  No, I'm deadly serious. GPLv2 vs CDDL is a complex situation with somewhat easy results (somewhat because there are divergent opinions - so far those opinions only got clicks in media and nothing in court). It's hard to determine whether GPLv2 would apply on distribution and on what kind of distribution, even. But your comparison with "pirated NTFS driver" was completely out of whack, suggesting that it's illegal to even do it personally (as would be the case with "pirated NTFS driver"). GPLv2 applies only on distribution. Always did, Always will.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    By "not being serious" I mean that what you're saying lacks even internal consistency.