![]() Theoretically if oracle held patents on btrfs, they could sue for btrfs patent infringement under GPLv2 whereas they could not with ZFS due to the CDDL. Regardless it’s one of the reasons some of us wish linux were licensed under GPL2+ since GP元 protects us from potential patent infringement arising from GP元 code. I’m not sure if this has ever happened or been tested in court. This means linux contributions can technically be submitted by a patent holder who can then sue linux users for patent infringement. Furthermore CDDL grants not only copyrights, but patent rights as well whereas GPLv2 does not. Some prefer weak-copyleft licenses including CDDL over strong-copyleft licenses like GPL, which can be considered more onerous for some developers. However your statement about CDDL being a trap is just an opinion. ![]() You’re right about the btrfs being ok to use in linux because it’s GPL2. It’s code is under CDDL and that license was intentionally aimed at preventing GPL compatibility. No, because btrfs was always a Linux targeted GPL-2 licensed project. I’m in the “it’s already automated” and “why change what works” boat, but I might give these a shot to see whether they can improve my workflows. What’s everyone’s experience with ZFS & btrfs? I mostly use block level snapshotting, but LVM2 has it’s own caveats and it would be useful to do at the file-system layer. Suse made it a default FS whereas redhat deprecated it. The main alternative to ZFS feature-wise is btrfs, but it doesn’t have a history of being robust, although I don’t know if that’s a fair assessment today. Alas it is common knowledge that the linux community is averse to stable ABIs. That would at least resolve the issue for 3rd party modules including zfs. Something he could do (but won’t) is adopt stable ABIs. And I agree with torvalds that he cannot merge ZFS into linux. There might have been a chance to rectify the situation when sun owned ZFS, but that ship has sailed and oracle is much more litigious than sun was, a point that torvalds brings up if you read his full quote. Obviously the license is at odds with the GPL. There’s plenty of demand for ZFS and many operating systems want it… Linus is downplaying the value of ZFS, obviously it is more than a buzzword and there would be lots of value in having it in linux. ![]() Maybe he should sit in on one of the monthly OpenZFS Dev Meetings. He’s shot himself in the foot before, but this is beyond sad to see, and so very, very, very wrong that’s it’s embarrassing to the whole Linux dev community. So, in this instance, Linus is talking out of his ass, and really needs to shut up, lock himself in a room, and actually research what, exactly, ZFS, OpenZFS, and ZFS-on-Linux really are. And the ZFS-on-Linux version is actively maintained and works great on multiple Linux distros. Yes, it’s licensed under the CDDL which means it will never be integrated directly into the Linux kernel source tree, but it’s part of the source trees for various other OSes (FreeBSD, Illumos, OpenSolaris, Delphix, TruOS) and hardware storage appliance vendors. There’s a lot of development happening with OpenZFS, and a lot of features have been added since the split with ZFSv28. Recently, the OpenZFS repo was rebased on the ZFS-on-Linux repo (previously, it used the Illumos repo). OpenZFS is actively maintained via the OpenZFS repo, and is used by dozens of hardware and software companies around the world. They actively maintain it, and there’s even some new features that have been added over the years (like native encryption). Oracle ZFS is highly proprietary, only runs on Oracle Solaris, and requires big payments from Oracle to access. They share a common ancestor (ZFSv28 from SUN), but they are no longer compatible, and should not be confused with each other. There’s two separate versions of ZFS: Oracle ZFS and OpenZFS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |