Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: OpenZFS Committed To Improving Open-Source ZFS

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,367

    Default OpenZFS Committed To Improving Open-Source ZFS

    Phoronix: OpenZFS Committed To Improving Open-Source ZFS

    Last month I wrote about the launch of OpenZFS as an initiative to organize the various open-source ZFS file-system projects around Linux, BSD, OS X, and other platforms. OpenZFS is an umbrella project now for all the different ZFS implementations since the code became available during the Sun Microsystems glory days...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ4ODI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Awesome. I just wish they could plug the GPL bug in the Linux kernel to allow inclusion of CCDL licensed code (or if Oracle could re-license it to be more permissive)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    Awesome. I just wish they could plug the GPL bug in the Linux kernel to allow inclusion of CCDL licensed code (or if Oracle could re-license it to be more permissive)
    The GPL incompability of CDDL was obviously a deliberate decision made by Sun's management as why the hell would they want to hand over their technical advantages to the competitor (Linux) which was eating them alive in the market, same goes for DTrace. Not that it ended up doing them much good.

    Now the chance that Oracle (who know owns ZFS) would re-licence it under GPL would have been a possibility if they weren't so invested in the GPL licenced BTRFS (which they created AFAIK), and has basically put their ZFS offering on proprietary maintenance mode.

    So ZFS will remain incompatible with inclusion into Linux, which again was the whole point with it being licenced under CDDL as the licence was crafted for that very purpose.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    The GPL incompability of CDDL was obviously a deliberate decision made by Sun's management as why the hell would they want to hand over their technical advantages to the competitor (Linux) which was eating them alive in the market, same goes for DTrace. Not that it ended up doing them much good.

    Now the chance that Oracle (who know owns ZFS) would re-licence it under GPL would have been a possibility if they weren't so invested in the GPL licenced BTRFS (which they created AFAIK), and has basically put their ZFS offering on proprietary maintenance mode.

    So ZFS will remain incompatible with inclusion into Linux, which again was the whole point with it being licenced under CDDL as the licence was crafted for that very purpose.
    One can always hope for Oracle doing the right thing (they are not as attached to Solaris). They have done some effort in getting DTrace on Linux, so perhaps...

    http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/ar...x-1956556.html

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    The GPL incompability of CDDL was obviously a deliberate decision made by Sun's management as why the hell would they want to hand over their technical advantages to the competitor (Linux) which was eating them alive in the market, same goes for DTrace. Not that it ended up doing them much good.

    Now the chance that Oracle (who know owns ZFS) would re-licence it under GPL would have been a possibility if they weren't so invested in the GPL licenced BTRFS (which they created AFAIK), and has basically put their ZFS offering on proprietary maintenance mode.

    So ZFS will remain incompatible with inclusion into Linux, which again was the whole point with it being licenced under CDDL as the licence was crafted for that very purpose.
    Some things I don't get:

    1. If Sun didn't want to hand out the technical merits of ZFS (which it obviously has) to competition, why did they create BTRFS? Can we imply from this that BTRFS is deliberately inferior? If not, why not just give away ZFS?

    2. Maybe this one everybody knows, but I personally fail to understand: what EXACTLY makes CDDL incompatible with GPL? What could happen if ZFS were included in the Linux kernel? Lawsuits?

    Thanks in advance.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Some things I don't get:
    1. If Sun didn't want to hand out the technical merits of ZFS (which it obviously has) to competition, why did they create BTRFS?
    Sun had nothing to do with BTRFS, it originated at Oracle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    2. Maybe this one everybody knows, but I personally fail to understand: what EXACTLY makes CDDL incompatible with GPL?
    As I recall it had to do with attribution notices and patent retaliation causing termination of distribution rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What could happen if ZFS were included in the Linux kernel? Lawsuits?
    Certainly it could, not that it would ever be included in the kernel while licenced as CDDL to begin with.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    One can always hope for Oracle doing the right thing (they are not as attached to Solaris). They have done some effort in getting DTrace on Linux, so perhaps...

    http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/ar...x-1956556.html
    As I said, I would find this plausible (Oracle offering ZFS under GPL) if it weren't for all the resources they've invested into BTRFS.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Could Oracle even re-license it as GPL? I thought they had to get permission from all the contributors?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Could Oracle even re-license it as GPL? I thought they had to get permission from all the contributors?
    I assumed that Sun required copyright assignment when someone contributed to their official version of ZFS, and that since Oracle bought ZFS together with their Sun aquisition they also gained full copyright over Sun's ZFS version (they can't of course take away the right to use existing CDDL licenced code under CDDL) they could re-licence/dual licence it at will.

    But maybe you're right and they can't re-licence it if Sun did not require copyright assignment to them, I don't know.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Sun had nothing to do with BTRFS, it originated at Oracle.
    Ok, so I restate:

    1. If ORACLE didn't want to hand out the technical merits of ZFS (which it obviously has) to competition, why did they create BTRFS? Can we imply from this that BTRFS is deliberately inferior? If not, why not just give away ZFS?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •