4 ms·

Cool. Now let's get ZFS in there since its licensing conflicts aren't actually a danger.

by pmarreck 4y ago

aidenn0 4y ago
SPL is a complete no-go for getting ZFS in.
- pmarreck 4y ago
  you mean CDDL? Empty threats are void, IMHO. Might take a bit of bravery to step over the fence, but if no one comes after you after a certain amount of time has passed, the fence is effectively not there. Ubuntu already did that work, though, so...
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    No, I mean SPL[1]. The linux devs definitely don't want a proliferation of porting interfaces mucking up the kernel tree, so unless the OpenZFS devs want to work on a Linux specific port, I don't see ZFS getting mainlined regardless of the licensing issue. CDDL certainly doesn't help to make this happen though. Also "Empty threats are void" is a silly stance to take; betting that nobody who will own copyright to code in the CDDL is going to sue anytime in the next 80ish years would be dumb even ignoring the fact that Oracle owns copyright to at least some of that code right now, and they are quite litigious. 1: https://github.com/openzfs/spl https://github.com/openzfs/spl
    - pmarreck 4y ago
      Didn't know about the SPL thing; interesting. So what's Ubuntu doing, just dealing with packaging it on their end? > betting that nobody who will own copyright to code in the CDDL is going to sue anytime in the next 80ish years would be dumb even ignoring the fact that Oracle owns copyright to at least some of that code right now, and they are quite litigious. When I wrote this, I was under the impression that US law more or less required copyrights to be regularly defended in order to maintain any "legal weight", but on Googling, it seems that while the awards in a case where a copyright was undefended until some significant time had passed, were lesser, it was still quite defensible. So I guess, fuck, that kind of sucks in a way, because it incentivizes patent trolling/hoarding/squatting, but it also makes it possible for someone without significant financial backing to benefit from a patent without having to afford good and regular legal defense. That's one hell of a damn tradeoff. A possibly better system would perhaps be one similar to what happens in the music biz in which a company takes a cut of any wins or profits by providing someone substantial legal representation in the defense of their copyrighted works.

Cool. Now let's get ZFS in there since its licensing conflicts aren't actually a danger.

aidenn0 4y ago

SPL is a complete no-go for getting ZFS in.

pmarreck 4y ago
you mean CDDL? Empty threats are void, IMHO. Might take a bit of bravery to step over the fence, but if no one comes after you after a certain amount of time has passed, the fence is effectively not there. Ubuntu already did that work, though, so...
- aidenn0 4y ago
  No, I mean SPL[1]. The linux devs definitely don't want a proliferation of porting interfaces mucking up the kernel tree, so unless the OpenZFS devs want to work on a Linux specific port, I don't see ZFS getting mainlined regardless of the licensing issue. CDDL certainly doesn't help to make this happen though. Also "Empty threats are void" is a silly stance to take; betting that nobody who will own copyright to code in the CDDL is going to sue anytime in the next 80ish years would be dumb even ignoring the fact that Oracle owns copyright to at least some of that code right now, and they are quite litigious. 1: https://github.com/openzfs/spl https://github.com/openzfs/spl
  - pmarreck 4y ago
    Didn't know about the SPL thing; interesting. So what's Ubuntu doing, just dealing with packaging it on their end? > betting that nobody who will own copyright to code in the CDDL is going to sue anytime in the next 80ish years would be dumb even ignoring the fact that Oracle owns copyright to at least some of that code right now, and they are quite litigious. When I wrote this, I was under the impression that US law more or less required copyrights to be regularly defended in order to maintain any "legal weight", but on Googling, it seems that while the awards in a case where a copyright was undefended until some significant time had passed, were lesser, it was still quite defensible. So I guess, fuck, that kind of sucks in a way, because it incentivizes patent trolling/hoarding/squatting, but it also makes it possible for someone without significant financial backing to benefit from a patent without having to afford good and regular legal defense. That's one hell of a damn tradeoff. A possibly better system would perhaps be one similar to what happens in the music biz in which a company takes a cut of any wins or profits by providing someone substantial legal representation in the defense of their copyrighted works.