4 ms·

I obviously share your frustration! I have long viewed these bogus licensing claims as the open source variant of NIH syndrome,[0] complete with the conjuring

I obviously share your frustration! I have long viewed these bogus licensing claims as the open source variant of NIH syndrome,[0] complete with the conjuring of both fear and grievance that always makes for particularly virulent thinking among the orthodox. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here

fmajid 3y ago
Hi Bryan! Yes, NIH is the most likely explanation, since btrfs was accepted depite originating from deepest, darkest Oracle (and I happen to share your dim opinion of them).
arp242 3y ago
But the license claims aren't bogus – or at least not all of them? For example the CDDL states that you can't add additional restrictions, but if you combine it with the GPL then the GPL also applies, so that's an "additional restriction", no? Of course, all of this is highly legalistic and in spirit the CDDL and GPL are essentially identical, and from that perspective any lawsuit would be complete bollocks, but ... bollocks lawsuits do happen. There's lots of claims about GPL and CDDL compatibility floating around and much of it sounds at least plausible and it's all a bit controversial. Clearing up this sort of confusion is exactly the sort of scenario where courts come in to play. So it seems to me that fears of a lawsuit are not entirely unreasonable. Do you want to put all your money and the future development of Linux at risk? The nature of lawsuits in the US means that as soon as the lawsuit is filed you've lost already, and the ruling just decides if you've lost even harder. Not denying Linux can have its share of NIH, but I see this mostly as a matter of risk management. e.g. Canonical has decided to take that risk, which is fair and reasonable, but Linus decided to not take that risk, which is also fair and reasonable. Of course the entire situation is ridiculous; btrfs is partly sponsored by Oracle, and Oracle is also sitting on a perfectly functional filesystem they can just relicense like they did with dtrace. I don't know what's preventing Oracle from doing that.
- fmajid 3y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you. I fully understand why the code can't be incorporated as is. Then again, workarounds were found for things like the proprietary nVidia drivers, and the unwillingness to do so for an arguably far superior filesystem reeks of NIH.
  - arp242 3y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean? The nVidia drivers have never been considered for inclusion in the kernel source tree?
    - fmajid 3y ago
      No, but there is a stable kernel API and ABI to interface with them, unlike the VFS kernel API that constantly changes and induces breakage in ZoL.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Why then does Canonical and many other places link it with the kernel and distribute it. Canonical stated there is no issue. If you really believe there is a license issue go ahead and start suing people and see how far you get with that. > So it seems to me that fears of a lawsuit are not entirely unreasonable. And yet lots cooperation shipped code and products with ZFS and Linux with no issue what so ever for many, many years now. > Do you want to put all your money and the future development of Linux at risk? Its not a risk for Linux at all. Its a risk for a company that distributes Linux with ZFS in it. If a company for some reason believes that there might be an issue and they don't want it, then they can feel free to remove it. My guess is that 99.9% of companies will simply use Linux with ZFS in it. > Linus decided to not take that risk, which is also fair and reasonable He could just say he would merge it, and unless half the large cooperations in the world jump on him to stop him there is no reason to not merge it. But he didn't do it, he just reject it out of hand based on some vague 'maybe oracle' something. Did he consult a lawyers?
  - arp242 3y ago

fmajid 3y ago

Hi Bryan! Yes, NIH is the most likely explanation, since btrfs was accepted depite originating from deepest, darkest Oracle (and I happen to share your dim opinion of them).

arp242 3y ago

But the license claims aren't bogus – or at least not all of them? For example the CDDL states that you can't add additional restrictions, but if you combine it with the GPL then the GPL also applies, so that's an "additional restriction", no? Of course, all of this is highly legalistic and in spirit the CDDL and GPL are essentially identical, and from that perspective any lawsuit would be complete bollocks, but ... bollocks lawsuits do happen. There's lots of claims about GPL and CDDL compatibility floating around and much of it sounds at least plausible and it's all a bit controversial. Clearing up this sort of confusion is exactly the sort of scenario where courts come in to play. So it seems to me that fears of a lawsuit are not entirely unreasonable. Do you want to put all your money and the future development of Linux at risk? The nature of lawsuits in the US means that as soon as the lawsuit is filed you've lost already, and the ruling just decides if you've lost even harder. Not denying Linux can have its share of NIH, but I see this mostly as a matter of risk management. e.g. Canonical has decided to take that risk, which is fair and reasonable, but Linus decided to not take that risk, which is also fair and reasonable. Of course the entire situation is ridiculous; btrfs is partly sponsored by Oracle, and Oracle is also sitting on a perfectly functional filesystem they can just relicense like they did with dtrace. I don't know what's preventing Oracle from doing that.

fmajid 3y ago
I'm not disagreeing with you. I fully understand why the code can't be incorporated as is. Then again, workarounds were found for things like the proprietary nVidia drivers, and the unwillingness to do so for an arguably far superior filesystem reeks of NIH.
- arp242 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean? The nVidia drivers have never been considered for inclusion in the kernel source tree?
  - fmajid 3y ago
    No, but there is a stable kernel API and ABI to interface with them, unlike the VFS kernel API that constantly changes and induces breakage in ZoL.
panick21_ 3y ago
Why then does Canonical and many other places link it with the kernel and distribute it. Canonical stated there is no issue. If you really believe there is a license issue go ahead and start suing people and see how far you get with that. > So it seems to me that fears of a lawsuit are not entirely unreasonable. And yet lots cooperation shipped code and products with ZFS and Linux with no issue what so ever for many, many years now. > Do you want to put all your money and the future development of Linux at risk? Its not a risk for Linux at all. Its a risk for a company that distributes Linux with ZFS in it. If a company for some reason believes that there might be an issue and they don't want it, then they can feel free to remove it. My guess is that 99.9% of companies will simply use Linux with ZFS in it. > Linus decided to not take that risk, which is also fair and reasonable He could just say he would merge it, and unless half the large cooperations in the world jump on him to stop him there is no reason to not merge it. But he didn't do it, he just reject it out of hand based on some vague 'maybe oracle' something. Did he consult a lawyers?
- arp242 3y ago