Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Sep 2013 22:04 UTC, submitted by garyd
General Development

ZFS is the world's most advanced filesystem, in active development for over a decade. Recent development has continued in the open, and OpenZFS is the new formal name for this open community of developers, users, and companies improving, using, and building on ZFS. Founded by members of the Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and illumos communities, including Matt Ahrens, one of the two original authors of ZFS, the OpenZFS community brings together over a hundred software developers from these platforms.

ZFS plays a major role in Solaris, of course, but beyond that, has it found other major homes? In fact, now that we're at it, how is Solaris doing anyway?

Thread beginning with comment 572477
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by porcel
by ssokolow on Thu 19th Sep 2013 02:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by porcel"
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

FUD. The author is not only *not* being sued,, but he claims he received an OK from a FSF lawyer.

There is also the case of SmartOS, which is making money with KVM + iillumos. Bryan Cantrill even gave a talk about it to the KVM devs.


Lawsuits are expensive and don't magically appear as soon as someone violates terms so nobody wants to take that risk of accepting what may be poison for a future "Sun's code in Linux" lawsuit just because Jörg Schilling didn't get sued yet.

In fact, as I remember, the main issue is that, by mixing GPL and CDDL, he's doing the legal equivalent of saying "I grant you permission to use this code as long as X == Y" where there's a high probability that Y = X+1.

(It's not his problem that he's requiring people to simultaneously follow two mutually-exclusive sets of rules... it just means that any prospective users are effectively operating under "no permission to use granted" conditions.)

You have to plan for the least favourable interpretation of the legalese, not the most. (Unless you're a huge company with tons of expensive lawyers. Then you can relax that rule.)

As for the OK from the FSF lawyer, do you have a first-hand citation for that? Wikipedia or not, I trust my citation more than your or Mr. Schilling's word of mouth.

Edited 2013-09-19 03:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by porcel
by pfgbsd on Thu 19th Sep 2013 09:56 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by porcel"
pfgbsd Member since:
2011-03-12



You have to plan for the least favourable interpretation of the legalese, not the most. (Unless you're a huge company with tons of expensive lawyers. Then you can relax that rule.)

As for the OK from the FSF lawyer, do you have a first-hand citation for that? Wikipedia or not, I trust my citation more than your or Mr. Schilling's word of mouth.


I have no interest in challenging Mr Schilling. Interested parties can always contact the SFLC, which, I have heard but don't believe, is full of lawsuit-hungry lawyers.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Comment by porcel
by ssokolow on Thu 19th Sep 2013 17:32 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by porcel"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

I have no interest in challenging Mr Schilling. Interested parties can always contact the SFLC, which, I have heard but don't believe, is full of lawsuit-hungry lawyers.


I have no interest in sueing Mr. Schilling... I just fully understand and agree with the principle of not incorporating code into your project if it engages in debatable licensing practices.

(I don't care how safe it is if I might be the one having to engage in a costly legal battle to set the precedent proving that safety.)

Edited 2013-09-19 17:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3