5 ms·

Oracle is a copyright holder, but they have no control over the direction of the OpenZFS fork.

Oracle is *a* copyright holder, but they have no control over the direction of the OpenZFS fork.

teddyh 3y ago
I’m not concerned about the direction of development, I’m concerned about Oracle holding the (or at least a significant part of) copyright to some software which is used as a Linux module, but which is licensed under a license which is (arguably) incompatible with the GPL. If Oracle wanted to, they could easily release their copyright under a dual license or something else to clear up the licensing issue. They have not, and have chosen to retain the ability to sue every Linux user using ZFS. This concerns me.
- NavinF 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37396155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37396155
  - teddyh 3y ago
    It doesn’t really matter on whose “side” the conflict lies; the license is arguably GPL-incompatible, and Linux is not going to change its license. But Oracle could, if they wanted to. And they evidently don’t want to, which is concerning.
    - jakobson14 3y ago
      It's plainly obvious why they don't. Oracle still sells *their* fork of ZFS. Back in the pre-oracle days Sun's fishworks division sold ZFS-based storage appliances. Oracle still sells those, and thanks to ZFS' reputation they're still profitable. Oracle simply took that much older fork of ZFS (with no OpenZFS code in it) and made it closed-source. Before anyone asks, no, that fork is too old and too diverged to be compatible with OpenZFS.
      - teddyh 3y ago
        All the more reason for Oracle to someday do something to put all those Linux ZFS servers into a questionable legal status. They could then stand with a carrot in their other hand, waving their own unquestionably legal version of “ZFS”.
        jakobson14 3y ago
        I don't think you understand how this works. Sun already gave all their power away via the CDDL. We're currently in a legally-stable state, and have been for over a decade now (nearly two). If they could have done something, they would have. The fact is that so long as nobody tries to merge ZFS code into the mainline kernel, there's nothing they can do. Everybody knows this, everybody agrees that would be a dumb idea, and everybody has agreed not to do it.
- jakobson14 3y ago
  Modules don't have to be under licences compatible with the GPL. There is no universe where you could possibly argue ZFS is a derived work of the kernel. None. Oracle can't actually sue people using ZFS modules. The CDDL licence that sun provided already gave all the relevant rights away. They can only sue from the GPL side as a kernel contributor, and that's ONLY if someone is dumb enough to ship ZFS code in the linux source tree. You *seriously* underestimate the number of people using ZoL in production that Oracle would love to sue *if they could.*

Oracle is *a* copyright holder, but they have no control over the direction of the OpenZFS fork.

I’m not concerned about the direction of development, I’m concerned about Oracle holding the (or at least a significant part of) copyright to some software which is used as a Linux module, but which is licensed under a license which is (arguably) incompatible with the GPL. If Oracle wanted to, they could easily release their copyright under a dual license or something else to clear up the licensing issue. They have not, and have chosen to retain the ability to sue every Linux user using ZFS. This concerns me.

NavinF 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37396155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37396155
- teddyh 3y ago
  It doesn’t really matter on whose “side” the conflict lies; the license is arguably GPL-incompatible, and Linux is not going to change its license. But Oracle could, if they wanted to. And they evidently don’t want to, which is concerning.
  - jakobson14 3y ago
    It's plainly obvious why they don't. Oracle still sells *their* fork of ZFS. Back in the pre-oracle days Sun's fishworks division sold ZFS-based storage appliances. Oracle still sells those, and thanks to ZFS' reputation they're still profitable. Oracle simply took that much older fork of ZFS (with no OpenZFS code in it) and made it closed-source. Before anyone asks, no, that fork is too old and too diverged to be compatible with OpenZFS.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      All the more reason for Oracle to someday do something to put all those Linux ZFS servers into a questionable legal status. They could then stand with a carrot in their other hand, waving their own unquestionably legal version of “ZFS”.
      - jakobson14 3y ago
        I don't think you understand how this works. Sun already gave all their power away via the CDDL. We're currently in a legally-stable state, and have been for over a decade now (nearly two). If they could have done something, they would have. The fact is that so long as nobody tries to merge ZFS code into the mainline kernel, there's nothing they can do. Everybody knows this, everybody agrees that would be a dumb idea, and everybody has agreed not to do it.
jakobson14 3y ago
Modules don't have to be under licences compatible with the GPL. There is no universe where you could possibly argue ZFS is a derived work of the kernel. None. Oracle can't actually sue people using ZFS modules. The CDDL licence that sun provided already gave all the relevant rights away. They can only sue from the GPL side as a kernel contributor, and that's ONLY if someone is dumb enough to ship ZFS code in the linux source tree. You *seriously* underestimate the number of people using ZoL in production that Oracle would love to sue *if they could.*