4 ms·

> * zfs — zfs is technically great, but binary distribution of the zfs code is tricky, because the CDDL is GPL incompatible Building your own ZFS module is eas

> * zfs — zfs is technically great, but binary distribution of the zfs code is tricky, because the CDDL is GPL incompatible Building your own ZFS module is easy enough, for example on Arch with zfs-dkms. But there's also the issue of compatibility. Sometimes kernel updates will break ZFS. Even minor ones, 6.2.13 IIRC broke it, whereas 6.2.12 was fine. Right now, 6.3 seems to introduce major compatibility problems. --- edit: looking through the openzfs issues, I was likely thinking of 6.2.8 breaking it, where 6.2.7 was fine. Point stands, though. https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/14658 https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/14658 Regarding 6.3 support, it apparently is merged in the master branch, but no release as of yet. https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/14622 https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/14622

bjoli 3y ago
How is the legal situation of doing that? If I had a company I wouldn't want to get in trouble with any litigious companies.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  The ArchZFS project distributes binary kernel images with ZFS integrated. I don't know what the legal situation is for that. In my case, the Arch package is more of a "recipe maker". It fetches the Linux headers and the zfs source code and compiles this for local use. As far as they are concerned, there is no distribution of the resulting artifact. IANAL, but I think if there's an issue with that, then OpenZFS is basically never usable under Linux. Other companies distributed kernels with zfs support directly, such as Ubuntu. I don't recall there being news of them being sued over this, but maybe they managed to work something out.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
    archzfs does not distribute any kernel images, they only provide pre-built modules for the officially supported kernels.
- dsr_ 3y ago
  IANAL. Oracle is very litigious. However, OpenZFS has been releasing code for more than a decade. Ubuntu shipped integrated ZFS/Linux in 2016. It's certain that Oracle knows all about it and has decided that being vague is more in their interests than actually settling the matter. On my list of potential legal worries, this is not a priority for me.
  - cduzz 3y ago
    I would add to this "IANAL But" list https://aws.amazon.com/fsx/openzfs/ https://aws.amazon.com/fsx/openzfs/ So -- AWS / Amazon are certainly big enough to have reviewed the licenses and have some understanding of potential legal risks of this.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  Unless you're distributing, I don't see how anybody could do anything. Personal (or company wide) use has always allowed the mixing of basically any licenses. The worst case scenarios would be something like Ubuntu being unable to provide compiled modules, but dkms would still be fine. Or the very unlikely ZFS on Linux getting sued, but that would involve a lengthy trial that would allow you to move away from Open ZFS.
  - chasil 3y ago
    The danger is specifically to the copyright holders of Linux - the authors who have code in the kernel. If they do not defend their copyright, then it is not strong and can be broken in certain scenarios. "Linux copyright holders in the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers believe that distribution of ZFS binaries is a GPL violation and infringes Linux's copyright." Linux bundling ZFS code would bring this text against the GPL: "You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable version of [the CDDL]." Ubuntu distributes ZFS as an out of tree module, which taints the kernel at immediately at installation. Hopefully, this is enough to prevent a great legal challenge. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/
    - boomboomsubban 3y ago
      Yes, distribution has legal risks. Use does not, it only has the risk that they are unable to get ZFS distributed.
      - PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
        Worth noting Oracle could clear it up very easily, the fact they won't is a worrying tale.
        boomboomsubban 3y ago
        I don't think anything Oracle can do would change the usability of OpenZFS. I'm also not positive how easily they could fix the distribution problems given OpenZFS has over a decade of work after the split, but as a whole I'm only discussing use, not distribution.
orra 3y ago
You're right that DKMS is fairly easy (at least until you enable secure boot). > Even minor ones, 6.2.13 IIRC broke it, whereas 6.2.12 was fine. Interesting! It's just a shame the license has hindered adoption. Ubuntu were shipping binary ZFS modules at one point, but they have walked back from that.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  > You're right that DKMS is fairly easy (at least until you enable secure boot). Still easy. Under Arch, the kernel image isn't signed, so if you enable secure boot you need to fiddle with signing on your own. At that point, you can just sign the kernel once the module is built. Works fine for me.
- mustache_kimono 3y ago
  > Ubuntu were shipping binary ZFS modules at one point, but they have walked back from that. This is incorrect? Ubuntu is still shipping binary modules.
  - orra 3y ago
    Right, but various things point to ZFS being de facto deprecated: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2023/01/ubuntu-zfs-support-status https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2023/01/ubuntu-zfs-support-statu...
    - mustache_kimono 3y ago
      > various things point to ZFS being de facto deprecated I'm not sure that's the case? Your link points to the ZFS on root install being deprecated on the desktop. I'm not sure what inference you/we can draw from that considering ZFS is a major component to LXD, and Ubuntu and Linux's sweet spot is as a server OS. > Ubuntu were shipping binary ZFS modules at one point, but they have walked back from that. Not to be persnickety, but this was your claim, and Ubuntu is still shipping ZFS binary modules on all it's current releases.
      - 3y ago
kaba0 3y ago
It might help someone: nixos can be configured to always use the latest kernel version that is compatible with zfs, I believe its config.boot.zfs.package.latestCompatibleLinuxPackages .

bjoli 3y ago

How is the legal situation of doing that? If I had a company I wouldn't want to get in trouble with any litigious companies.

vladvasiliu 3y ago
The ArchZFS project distributes binary kernel images with ZFS integrated. I don't know what the legal situation is for that. In my case, the Arch package is more of a "recipe maker". It fetches the Linux headers and the zfs source code and compiles this for local use. As far as they are concerned, there is no distribution of the resulting artifact. IANAL, but I think if there's an issue with that, then OpenZFS is basically never usable under Linux. Other companies distributed kernels with zfs support directly, such as Ubuntu. I don't recall there being news of them being sued over this, but maybe they managed to work something out.
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
  archzfs does not distribute any kernel images, they only provide pre-built modules for the officially supported kernels.
dsr_ 3y ago
IANAL. Oracle is very litigious. However, OpenZFS has been releasing code for more than a decade. Ubuntu shipped integrated ZFS/Linux in 2016. It's certain that Oracle knows all about it and has decided that being vague is more in their interests than actually settling the matter. On my list of potential legal worries, this is not a priority for me.
- cduzz 3y ago
  I would add to this "IANAL But" list https://aws.amazon.com/fsx/openzfs/ https://aws.amazon.com/fsx/openzfs/ So -- AWS / Amazon are certainly big enough to have reviewed the licenses and have some understanding of potential legal risks of this.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
Unless you're distributing, I don't see how anybody could do anything. Personal (or company wide) use has always allowed the mixing of basically any licenses. The worst case scenarios would be something like Ubuntu being unable to provide compiled modules, but dkms would still be fine. Or the very unlikely ZFS on Linux getting sued, but that would involve a lengthy trial that would allow you to move away from Open ZFS.
- chasil 3y ago
  The danger is specifically to the copyright holders of Linux - the authors who have code in the kernel. If they do not defend their copyright, then it is not strong and can be broken in certain scenarios. "Linux copyright holders in the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers believe that distribution of ZFS binaries is a GPL violation and infringes Linux's copyright." Linux bundling ZFS code would bring this text against the GPL: "You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable version of [the CDDL]." Ubuntu distributes ZFS as an out of tree module, which taints the kernel at immediately at installation. Hopefully, this is enough to prevent a great legal challenge. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    Yes, distribution has legal risks. Use does not, it only has the risk that they are unable to get ZFS distributed.
    - PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
      Worth noting Oracle could clear it up very easily, the fact they won't is a worrying tale.
      - boomboomsubban 3y ago
        I don't think anything Oracle can do would change the usability of OpenZFS. I'm also not positive how easily they could fix the distribution problems given OpenZFS has over a decade of work after the split, but as a whole I'm only discussing use, not distribution.

orra 3y ago

You're right that DKMS is fairly easy (at least until you enable secure boot). > Even minor ones, 6.2.13 IIRC broke it, whereas 6.2.12 was fine. Interesting! It's just a shame the license has hindered adoption. Ubuntu were shipping binary ZFS modules at one point, but they have walked back from that.

vladvasiliu 3y ago
> You're right that DKMS is fairly easy (at least until you enable secure boot). Still easy. Under Arch, the kernel image isn't signed, so if you enable secure boot you need to fiddle with signing on your own. At that point, you can just sign the kernel once the module is built. Works fine for me.
mustache_kimono 3y ago
> Ubuntu were shipping binary ZFS modules at one point, but they have walked back from that. This is incorrect? Ubuntu is still shipping binary modules.
- orra 3y ago
  Right, but various things point to ZFS being de facto deprecated: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2023/01/ubuntu-zfs-support-status https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2023/01/ubuntu-zfs-support-statu...
  - mustache_kimono 3y ago
    > various things point to ZFS being de facto deprecated I'm not sure that's the case? Your link points to the ZFS on root install being deprecated on the desktop. I'm not sure what inference you/we can draw from that considering ZFS is a major component to LXD, and Ubuntu and Linux's sweet spot is as a server OS. > Ubuntu were shipping binary ZFS modules at one point, but they have walked back from that. Not to be persnickety, but this was your claim, and Ubuntu is still shipping ZFS binary modules on all it's current releases.
    - 3y ago

kaba0 3y ago

It might help someone: nixos can be configured to always use the latest kernel version that is compatible with zfs, I believe its config.boot.zfs.package.latestCompatibleLinuxPackages .