20 ms·

Another fix for that is to switch the ZFS license to GPL before building: Just put this line: sed -i "s/CDDL/GPL/g" META in the prepare() section of the PKGB

by nisa 3y ago

Another fix for that is to switch the ZFS license to GPL before building: Just put this line: sed -i "s/CDDL/GPL/g" META in the prepare() section of the PKGBUILD. This will use the in-kernel FPU functions for cryptography and other things like raidz calculations that got EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL'ed later if the original plumbing is still in the codebase. It's probably not offically recommend and I'm not sure how much these codepaths are tested anymore but I assume that quite a few people that don't need to redistribute anything but need the performance use a hack like this or something similiar. It works fine for me. Personally I lost a ton of respect for the Linux kernel developers after introducing that kernel fpu EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL thing and backporting it to all kernels and Linus badmouthing ZFS and somehow assuming Oracle is still involved in OpenZFS which is mostly FreeBSD and some sponsors spread out over the world but not related to Oracle.

nine_k 3y ago
This evokes in me a distinct feeling of applying a crack to run a pirated game.
- nisa 3y ago
  I guess it violates the CDDL licence - at the time some distributions like NixOS just patched the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL out of the Linux kernel (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/61076/commits/7b77c27caa8617c82df5c5af6b9ce6ae010d7f9a https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/61076/commits/7b77c27c...) which could even be totally legal for redistribution as the GPL probably allows this?
- nicman23 3y ago
  it is probably fine as it is just the instructions. i have done it before in a raspberry for some reason i do not remember
Sodel 3y ago
I mostly agree with your points except to say that, even if Oracle is not active in the project, the risk is real as long as Oracle owns any of the copyright for any ZFS code. The USL vs BSDi litigation over BSD ultimately came down to a handful of source files out of 18000. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Berkeley_Software_Distribution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Berkeley_Soft... ) I wouldn't talk badly against ZFS, but I would not roll any dice with Oracle as a copyright holder.
tiberious726 3y ago
So the answer is crime?

by nisa 3y ago

nine_k 3y ago

This evokes in me a distinct feeling of applying a crack to run a pirated game.

nisa 3y ago
I guess it violates the CDDL licence - at the time some distributions like NixOS just patched the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL out of the Linux kernel (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/61076/commits/7b77c27caa8617c82df5c5af6b9ce6ae010d7f9a https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/61076/commits/7b77c27c...) which could even be totally legal for redistribution as the GPL probably allows this?
nicman23 3y ago
it is probably fine as it is just the instructions. i have done it before in a raspberry for some reason i do not remember

Sodel 3y ago

I mostly agree with your points except to say that, even if Oracle is not active in the project, the risk is real as long as Oracle owns any of the copyright for any ZFS code. The USL vs BSDi litigation over BSD ultimately came down to a handful of source files out of 18000. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Berkeley_Software_Distribution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Berkeley_Soft... ) I wouldn't talk badly against ZFS, but I would not roll any dice with Oracle as a copyright holder.

tiberious726 3y ago

So the answer is crime?