Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Mar 2013 23:45 UTC
Linux "Today the ZFS on Linux project reached an important milestone with the official 0.6.1 release! Over two years of use by real users has convinced us ZoL is ready for wide scale deployment on everything from desktops to super computers."
Thread beginning with comment 557162
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: "Technically" great work, ...
by saso on Sat 30th Mar 2013 14:23 UTC in reply to ""Technically" great work, ..."
saso
Member since:
2007-04-18

I guess that no distro is permitted to distribute a kernel with zfs.

This is more of a political/religious issue, rather than a real legal dispute. I highly doubt any open-source distro would ever get sued by any GPL license holder due to the CDDL being incompatible in technicalities. But that's just my opinion.

I really doubt Oracle will change the lisense ever

While Oracle still holds copyright to large portions of the codebase that went into ZoL, they don't hold all of it any more. Many other companies and individuals have contributed, and they'd all have to agree to relicense.

I think the cddl was specifically written to be Gpl incompatible.

Depends on who you ask. Some people say it was, some people say it wasn't.

Sadly I think their effort would have been better spent on making btrfs better.

The amount of work needed to get a complex storage stack up to production quality is mind blowing, so I can't blame them for not wanting to reinvent the wheel and instead just port something that works. Look at the mess SystemTap is in (http://dtrace.org/blogs/brendan/2011/10/15/using-systemtap/) and those guys have been at it since 2006.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

This is more of a political/religious issue, rather than a real legal dispute. I highly doubt any open-source distro would ever get sued by any GPL license holder due to the CDDL being incompatible in technicalities. But that's just my opinion.


I disagree, especially since Oracle is one very interesting party. There is an unquestionable legal incompatibility between the GPL and the CDDL, not a political one, so Linux with ZFS can't be distributed, and that is a fact. On the other hand, if I'm not mistaken, nothing prevents you from building Linux with ZFS, or having ZFS as a module, as long as you do not distribute it.

In a nutshell, you cannot legally have a complete binary Linux distro with ZFS out of the box, but you can work around it by building it on the fly.

Reply Parent Score: 10

saso Member since:
2007-04-18

I disagree, especially since Oracle is one very interesting party. There is an unquestionable legal incompatibility between the GPL and the CDDL, not a political one, so Linux with ZFS can't be distributed, and that is a fact.

The incompatibility arises from GPL's insistence that all derived work must be GPL. The CDDL prohibits removal of the license, hence the deadlock. Please note, that here the "GPL" party is the one that's wronged, not the CDDL one, so Oracle would have no standing to sue. It's the rest of the Linux copyright owners that would have to do that.

Now take a guess, what do you think the odds are that some Linux code author is going to sue, say, Debian for distributing ZFS inside of Linux? We're not talking distributing some closed-source evil baby-eating binary blob (ahem-nVidia-ahem). We're still talking copyleft open-source, but simply a different one.

That's what I mean that it's a political, or rather, a perception issue. If people aren't suing Ubuntu for shipping the closed-source nVidia driver, they're not going to sue simply because they dared to ship a piece of code that's under a different open-source copyleft license.

Look, from where I'm standing, I couldn't care less. The longer Linux holds off integrating technologies such as ZFS and DTrace, the more users flock to OpenSolaris-derived and FreeBSD systems. Then we get crazy half-functional duplicates (Btrfs, SystemTap) popping up simply because some religious nut couldn't get it through their thick skull that as long as the license grants them the same freedoms, it really doesn't matter whether the letters on the file header say "CDDL" or "GPL".

Reply Parent Score: 2

MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19


The amount of work needed to get a complex storage stack up to production quality is mind blowing, .


I agree, it's an incredible amount of work, that's why I hate to see all this effort expended on a project that will never likely be accepted by most of the Linux community.

It would really be fantastic if it could be, but I doubt Oracle will ever change. In fact it would not surprise me if they close sourced zfs like they did with Solaris.

Reply Parent Score: 2

saso Member since:
2007-04-18

In fact it would not surprise me if they close sourced zfs like they did with Solaris.

They did, but the cat's out of the bag now. Open-source ZFS is now being developed here: http://illumos.org/

Reply Parent Score: 3

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

This is more of a political/religious issue, rather than a real legal dispute. I highly doubt any open-source distro would ever get sued by any GPL license holder due to the CDDL being incompatible in technicalities. But that's just my opinion.


No credible distro will ask itself whether it can get away with something without getting sued. The question is whether it's legally entitled to distribute it, which it isn't.

Reply Parent Score: 5

sforstall1983 Member since:
2012-09-28

I know OS4, http://www.os4online.com, distributes ZFS. Dont know if its in 13.3, I read something on the Facebook page about it being included.

Reply Parent Score: 2