OSNews

But the problem is that GPL is too restrictive. Thus ZFS couldn't be included in Linux kernel and Btrfs(also GPL) won't be easily included in other operating systems. If I understand correctly...

sun could make zfs gpl. there was talk about it as a trade for linux kernel drivers.

but they chose not to because they are launching new products that use it, and it is a big differentiating feature between them and linux.

That's life. Seriously. Choices have consequences, and some of them are beneficial and some of them are not. It is unlikely that ZFS will see inclusion in the Linux kernel, and it is unlikely that btrfs will see inclusion in the *Solaris kernel. (Should that be plural or not?) Sometimes those kinds of barriers are significant, and sometimes they are not. I am not convinced that the sharing of filesystem code has much benefit over cross-pollenation of *ideas* in this particular case, for reasons which I have outlined elsewhere in this thread.

I find that discussions on licensing often end up doing nothing more than generating bad blood and resentment between the various parties, without yielding any meaningful benefits.

An impedance mismatch between the ZFS architecture and Linux kernel architecture is *not* political, however. Sun's goals for ZFS, apparently, are for it the be the Solaris filesystem. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That strategy has its strengths. And in that case, putting the layering of logical levels into ZFS itself makes perfect sense. However, supporting a broad range of filesystems is a strategy which also has its strengths, and that is what Linux does. In that case, having all the layering of raid, volume manager, fs, etc. in ZFS itself makes no sense at all.

No NIH is required to see that ZFS, while a good fit for Solaris, is a poor fit for Linux.

As to licensing... that does have a political aspect. But the problem is primarily a practical one from the Linux kernel devs standpoint. Although an argument could be made that Sun's choice of license might have been motivated by political (or perhaps "strategic" would be a better word) factors.

Edited 2008-04-30 16:44 UTC

I don't think that argument holds, since Btrfs is busy copying all the "layer violation" features from ZFS such as RAID.