3 ms·
What surprises me the most about the fact that Oracle apparently is fine with this is that they could very easily have just updated ZFS's license (or add an alt
by saghm 4y ago
What surprises me the most about the fact that Oracle apparently is fine with this is that they could very easily have just updated ZFS's license (or add an alternative alongside the existing one) to make it fully compatible with Linux at any point since getting ownership of it through their Sun acquisition. It seemed like an intentional decision not to do so, but I guess it is possible they somehow have been oblivious to all of this the entire time.
- p_l 4y agoOracle ZFS and OpenZFS by now are separate things and Oracle changing license from their proprietary one to another wouldn't impact OpenZFS. Remember, Oracle changed their license back to proprietary closed source.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y agoOh, yeah, that whole thing is maddening. Oracle is a major user of Linux; they could have just made the ZFS code properly, formally GPLv2 compatible and merged it in and overnight have an amazing storage system in OEL. Instead, they just... sat on it. Ugh.
- ungamedplayer 4y agoI imagine they sat on it, so that if they needed to strongarm someone using it.. they could. Red Hat would be their immediate target to bend over.
- viraptor 4y ago> but I guess it is possible they somehow have been oblivious to all of this the entire time. It's possible their licensing lawyers have a long todo list and researching what to do with Ubuntu is not the highest priority yet. It took them quite a while before they started contacting companies about the virtualbox extensions usage.
- p_l 4y agoOr, much more likely, they face the fact that they have no leg to stand on, which was intentional in CDDL design from the get go. Any licensing challenges regarding ZFS in Linux come from GPL people lawyering about derivative code and whether it applies.