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 572534
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by porcel
by pfgbsd on Thu 19th Sep 2013 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by porcel"
pfgbsd
Member since:
2011-03-12

KVM for Illumos module doesn't use the deep hooks that the Linux system has (Which are marked as GPL-only)

...

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Linux has a mix of public and private interfaces - private interfaces are marked as GPL only, Linus specifically says that linking against the public system call interfaces doesn't make your user space software a derived work of the kernel - It's not an exception, just a statement of fact.



TBH, I honestly don't care what linux consider private or public; the license doesn't mention any different between them so such considerations usually have little legal weight.

The more interesting question would be how this applies to ZFS. The ZFS on Linux site carries an informative link in their FAQ:

http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue

The combination of them causes problems because it prevents using pieces of code exclusively available under one license with pieces of code exclusively available under the other in the same binary. In the case of the kernel, this prevents us from distributing ZFS as part of the kernel binary. However, there is nothing in either license that prevents distributing it in the form of a binary module or in the form of source code.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Comment by porcel
by ssokolow on Thu 19th Sep 2013 18:50 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by porcel"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

TBH, I honestly don't care what linux consider private or public; the license doesn't mention any different between them so such considerations usually have little legal weight.


The difference carries a ton of weight.

Without it, it would be impossible to run GPL/CDDL software on a kernel under another license or to use a GPL/CDDL kernel to run proprietary software.

When you link against a private interface, the normal rules apply.

When you link against a public interface, you're using the legal rules for making a system call from userland.

That's what syscalls are. They're function calls to public interfaces in the kernel, wrapped in some extra libc and kernel machinery to handle things like the transition between user mode and kernel mode.

Without that difference, calling fopen() could be enough to require that the licenses for the kernel and software run on it are mutually compatible.

Edited 2013-09-19 18:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[11]: Comment by porcel
by pfgbsd on Thu 19th Sep 2013 20:16 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by porcel"
pfgbsd Member since:
2011-03-12

"TBH, I honestly don't care what linux consider private or public; the license doesn't mention any different between them so such considerations usually have little legal weight.


The difference carries a ton of weight.

"

Nah, very, very little.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/120806-closed-modules2.html

... copyright offers the weakest of protections: it covers only narrowly defined expressions.


The whole article is worth a read, and it covers the issue in much deeper depth that I can explain here.

Reply Parent Score: 1