Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > > Sorry but your reply is completely misleading as the people who claim that > > there is a legal problem with having ZFS in the Linux kernel would of course > > also claim that Reiserfs cannot be in the FreeBSD kernel. > > It seems that it is a license violation to link a computer containing > GPLed code to the Internet. I think I heard on usenet or a blog that > it was illegal to link GPLed code with non-GPLed code. The Internet > itself is obviously a derived work and is therefore subject to the > GPL. This is what e.g. Lawrence Rosen also mentions ;-) BTW: Our preliminary license compatibility information is now on-line: http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility To switch to German, use the top level at: http://www.osscc.net/en/index.html Most people may know the OpenSource book from Larwence Rosen (see link in our web page). I have a new paper on License combinations from my collegue Tom Gordon (US-lawyer) on our server at: http://www.osscc.net/pdf/QualipsoA1D113.pdf Hope this helps to understand things better. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: Sorry but your reply is completely misleading as the people who claim that there is a legal problem with having ZFS in the Linux kernel would of course also claim that Reiserfs cannot be in the FreeBSD kernel. It seems that it is a license violation to link a computer containing GPLed code to the Internet. I think I heard on usenet or a blog that it was illegal to link GPLed code with non-GPLed code. The Internet itself is obviously a derived work and is therefore subject to the GPL. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2010-Jun-11 17:41:38 +0800, Joerg Schilling > wrote: > >PP.S.: Did you know that FreeBSD _includes_ the GPLd Reiserfs in the FreeBSD > >kernel since a while and that nobody did complain about this, see e.g.: > > > >http://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/8/sys/gnu/fs/reiserfs/ > > That is completely irrelevant and somewhat misleading. FreeBSD has > never prohibited non-BSD-licensed code in their kernel or userland > however it has always been optional and, AFAIR, the GENERIC kernel has > always defaulted to only contain BSD code. Non-BSD code (whether GPL > or CDDL) is carefully segregated (note the 'gnu' in the above URI). Sorry but your reply is completely misleading as the people who claim that there is a legal problem with having ZFS in the Linux kernel would of course also claim that Reiserfs cannot be in the FreeBSD kernel. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On 2010-Jun-11 17:41:38 +0800, Joerg Schilling wrote: >PP.S.: Did you know that FreeBSD _includes_ the GPLd Reiserfs in the FreeBSD >kernel since a while and that nobody did complain about this, see e.g.: > >http://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/8/sys/gnu/fs/reiserfs/ That is completely irrelevant and somewhat misleading. FreeBSD has never prohibited non-BSD-licensed code in their kernel or userland however it has always been optional and, AFAIR, the GENERIC kernel has always defaulted to only contain BSD code. Non-BSD code (whether GPL or CDDL) is carefully segregated (note the 'gnu' in the above URI). -- Peter Jeremy pgpvmgKqx7nJf.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux (OK, done now)
On 6/12/2010 1:44 PM, andrew wrote: On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote: On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal wrote: We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to linux. When we posted our progress about port last year, then we came to know about the work on LLNL port. Since then we started working on to re-base our changing on top Brian's changes. We are working on porting ZPL on that code. Our current status is that mount/unmount is working. Most of the directory operations and read/write is also working. There is still lot more development work and testing that needs to be going in this. But we are committed to make this happen so please stay tuned. Good times ahead! I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that someone lawyerly has had the appropriate discussions with the porting team about how linking against the GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be GPL-compatible. It doesn't matter if you distribute it outside the general kernel source tarball, what matters is that you're linking against a GPL program, and the old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do that. This is incorrect. The viral effects of the GPL only take effect at the point of distribution. If ZFS is distributed seperately to the Linux kernel as a module then the person doing the combining is the user. Different if a Linux distro wanted to include it on a live CD, for example. GPL is not concerned with what code is linked with what. Cheers Andrew. Yes, I know that. As has also been pointed out before in this thread. But, while it's not the original ZFS-linux developer's fault, very often you see downstream aggregators and distributions created out of software from multiple sources. It very much would be their problem. As would any folks producing hardware appliances. Or any of the other myriad (but by no means all) ways that using the ZFS-linux code could easily turn into distribution. The original point was that both the developer and those downstream need to be careful about using these two kinds of licensed code together. Not that's it not possible to use the code. Just that the developer needs to get good (professional) legal advice, and follow it. And that the limitations are understood by the community at large. I assumed distribution of the combined code at some point in my original note. Sorry I wasn't explicit about that. I didn't mean to start a license minutiae discussion. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
> On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag > Agarwal wrote: > > > >> We at KQInfotech, initially started on an > independent port of ZFS to linux. > >> When we posted our progress about port last year, > then we came to know about > >> the work on LLNL port. Since then we started > working on to re-base our > >> changing on top Brian's changes. > >> > >> We are working on porting ZPL on that code. Our > current status is that > >> mount/unmount is working. Most of the directory > operations and read/write is > >> also working. There is still lot more development > work and testing that > >> needs to be going in this. But we are committed to > make this happen so > >> please stay tuned. > >> > > > > Good times ahead! > > > I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that > someone lawyerly has had the appropriate discussions > with the porting team about how linking against the > GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be > GPL-compatible. It doesn't matter if you distribute > it outside the general kernel source tarball, what > matters is that you're linking against a GPL program, > and the old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a > non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do that. This is incorrect. The viral effects of the GPL only take effect at the point of distribution. If ZFS is distributed seperately to the Linux kernel as a module then the person doing the combining is the user. Different if a Linux distro wanted to include it on a live CD, for example. GPL is not concerned with what code is linked with what. Cheers Andrew. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Dick Hoogendijk wrote: Op Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:00:39 +0200 schreef Joerg Schilling : The main problem with GPL related license debates seems to be that very few people did read the GPL license text. Or simply do not want to and just believe what they have been told to be the truth. If things are told often enough they have a tendency to become true, even if they are not. Richard Stallman and the FSF are feeling considerable remorse over GPLv2 (and especially LGPL) since they had not fully anticipated how things turned out. GNU Hurd failed while Linux prevailed, so Linux was re-christend GNU/Linux but is not under FSF control. Due to the profound remorse, opinions expressed on the FSF/GNU web sites have tried to add enough FUD to suggest that perfectly legal approaches might actually be infringing ones. More recently, GPLv3 became the current GPL license. GPLv3 was written over a span of quite a few years, with many lawyers involved. Opinions/advice on the FSF/GNU web site are now based on GPLv3 since it is the current GPL license. Linux is locked into the GPLv2 license since Linus did not trust the FSF. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Op Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:00:39 +0200 schreef Joerg Schilling : The main problem with GPL related license debates seems to be that very few people did read the GPL license text. Or simply do not want to and just believe what they have been told to be the truth. If things are told often enough they have a tendency to become true, even if they are not. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | OpenSolaris 2010.xx b134 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > I am really sad to hear you saying these things since if it was all > actually true, then Linux, *BSD, and Solaris distributions could not > legally exist. Thankfully, only part of the above is true. If linking of independent works would create something else than a (permitted) collective work, the WWW could not exist. The main problem with GPL related license debates seems to be that very few people did read the GPL license text. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Freddie Cash wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Freddie Cash wrote: For the record, the following paragraph was incorrectly quoted by Bob. This paragraph was originally It would not have been incorrectly quoted by Bob if you configured your mail client to produce Internet standard email rather than an embedded web site. I did not intentionally misquote your mail. Perhaps my email client does not know how to distinguish between 'puce' or 'purple'. Its OCR capabilities seem to be limited. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Freddie Cash wrote: > >> >> For the record, the following paragraph was incorrectly quoted by Bob. This paragraph was originally written by Erik Trimble: > I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that someone lawyerly has had >> the appropriate discussions with the porting team about how linking against >> the GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be GPL-compatible. >> It doesn't matter if you distribute it outside the general kernel source >> tarball, what matters is that you're linking against a GPL program, and the >> old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do >> that. >> >> This is the start of the stuff that I wrote: > GPL is a distribution license, not a usage license. You can manually >> download all the GPL and non-GPL code you want, so long as you do it >> separately from each other. Then you can compile them all into a single >> binary on your own system, and use it all you want on that system. The GPL >> does not affect anything that happens on that system. If you try to copy >> those binaries off to use on another system, then the GPL kicks in and >> everything breaks down. >> >> IOW, the GPL has absolutely no bearing on what you compile and run on your >> system ... so long as you don't distribute the code and/or binaries >> together. >> > > I am really sad to hear you saying these things since if it was all > actually true, then Linux, *BSD, and Solaris distributions could not > legally exist. Thankfully, only part of the above is true. His complaint is about the mis-quoted paragraph from Erik, and not about the stuff I wrote. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Freddie Cash wrote: I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that someone lawyerly has had the appropriate discussions with the porting team about how linking against the GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be GPL-compatible. It doesn't matter if you distribute it outside the general kernel source tarball, what matters is that you're linking against a GPL program, and the old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do that. GPL is a distribution license, not a usage license. You can manually download all the GPL and non-GPL code you want, so long as you do it separately from each other. Then you can compile them all into a single binary on your own system, and use it all you want on that system. The GPL does not affect anything that happens on that system. If you try to copy those binaries off to use on another system, then the GPL kicks in and everything breaks down. IOW, the GPL has absolutely no bearing on what you compile and run on your system ... so long as you don't distribute the code and/or binaries together. I am really sad to hear you saying these things since if it was all actually true, then Linux, *BSD, and Solaris distributions could not legally exist. Thankfully, only part of the above is true. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
> "gd" == Garrett D'Amore writes: gd> There are numerous people in the community that have indicated gd> that they believe that such linking creates a *derivative* gd> work. Donald Becker has made this claim rather forcefully. yes, I think he has a point. The reality is, as long as Linus continues insisting that his ``interpretation'' of the GPL allows loading proprietary modules like ati/nVidia/wireless/... into the Linux kernel, it looks like no one will be sued over a module. This has been holding for a few decades anyway. If everyone with standing to sue is sufficiently under Linus's thumb then you may become safe enough for it to be worth the risk. Also, if they do not distribute their ZFS port to anyone else then they're fine: quite intentionally, they can link anything they like with Linux so long as they never distribute any binaries outside their organization, just like Akamai is fine basing their entire business off GPL'd Squid source code that they've improved vastly and not shared with anyone. We may find ourselves in a position where the guys distributing this Linux ZFS module could be sued and then told ``you have lost the right to distribute the GPL-derived work,'' to which their answer is, ``fine, we do not need to distribute it anyway. We only need to use it internally,'' so confronting them is a net loss for most of the parties with standing to do the confronting. An exception is, it could be a net win for Oracle because if they could shut down zfs.ko then peopo would be forced to run Solaris to get performant ZFS, which might play out in a funny way: Q. We are the owners of foobrulator.c in Linux, a GPLv2 source file. You may not link this CDDL stuff against our foobrulator.c. You have lost the right to distribute foobrulator.c. A. Wait, don't you own the copyright to the more restrictive CDDL stuff in question? Q. Yes, we own the copyrights to both sources, but you cannot link them together. A. HAHAHA you can't be serious. Q. Mwauh hah hah. A. ... who knows. maybe it could happen. In short, * yes zfs.ko could be a little sketchy * other people are doing much sketchier things already and making a lot of money doing it * looking at the big picture is a lot more convoluted than just ``allowed'' or ``OMGillegall''. If you want your share of this money/fame of the second bullet you might push the envelope as the others have, and consider who has standing to sue whom given a specific way of building and distributing the module, and among those who have standing who has motivation to do it, and finally if they actually do then how much have you got to lose. In other words: business, instead of FUD pedantry and CYA. * in particular, if your business does not involve distributing software... :) * GPL has so much momentum that contributing to a GPL-incompatible project is a significantly less valuable use of your time than contributing to a GPL-compatible one, even and maybe especially if you do not like the GPL. Perl, Apache, BSD, and FSF are all wising up to this and making their licenses more compatible from both directions. CDDL is thus, granted obviously well-liked by some, but very disappointing and regressive to quite a few potential contributors, and this disappointment is widely-understood partly becuse of ZFS+Linux. I almost hope they do not share their port with anyone and use it only internally, and that they make some huge improvements to ZFS that they then claim cannot be given back to Solaris because of license incompatibility. That will send a strong message to the forces of arrogance that crafted a GPL incompatible license at such a late date. In this age of web-scale megacompanies the distinction between GPL-style freedom and BSD-style freedom is much less because operations do not require binary redistributing, but license compatibility does still matter. pgpJGNtgXx2f3.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Alex Blewitt wrote: > You are sadly mistaken. > > From GNU.org on license compatibilities: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > > Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0 > This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope > that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it > incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a > module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you > not to use the CDDL for this reason. > > Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term “intellectual > property”. > > Whether a license is classified as "Open Source" or not does not imply that > all open source licenses are compatible with each other. Can we stop the license talk *yet again* Nobody here is a lawyer (IANAL!) and everyone has their own interpretations and are splitting hairs. In my opinion, the source code itself shouldn't be ported, the CONCEPTS should be. Then there's no licensing issues at all. No questions. etc. To me, ZFS is important for bitrot protection, pooled storage and snapshots come in handy in a couple places. Getting a COW filesystem w/ snapshots and storage pooling would cover a lot of the demand for ZFS as far as I'm concerned. (However, that's when a comparison with Btrfs makes sense as it is COW too) The minute I saw "ZFS on Linux" I knew this would degrade into a virtual pissing contest on "my understanding is better than yours" and a licensing fight. To me, this is what needs to happen: a) Get a Sun/Oracle attorney involved who understands this and flat out explains what needs to be done to allow ZFS to be used with the Linux kernel, or b) Port the concepts and not the code (or the portions of code under the restrictive license), or c) Look at Btrfs or other filesystems which may be extended to give the same capabilities as ZFS without the licensing issue and focus all this development time on extending those. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal >> wrote: >> >> >>> We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to >>> linux. >>> When we posted our progress about port last year, then we came to know >>> about >>> the work on LLNL port. Since then we started working on to re-base our >>> changing on top Brian's changes. >>> >>> We are working on porting ZPL on that code. Our current status is that >>> mount/unmount is working. Most of the directory operations and read/write >>> is >>> also working. There is still lot more development work and testing that >>> needs to be going in this. But we are committed to make this happen so >>> please stay tuned. >>> >>> >> >> Good times ahead! >> >> > I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that someone lawyerly has had > the appropriate discussions with the porting team about how linking against > the GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be GPL-compatible. > It doesn't matter if you distribute it outside the general kernel source > tarball, what matters is that you're linking against a GPL program, and the > old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do > that. > > GPL is a distribution license, not a usage license. You can manually download all the GPL and non-GPL code you want, so long as you do it separately from each other. Then you can compile them all into a single binary on your own system, and use it all you want on that system. The GPL does not affect anything that happens on that system. If you try to copy those binaries off to use on another system, then the GPL kicks in and everything breaks down. IOW, the GPL has absolutely no bearing on what you compile and run on your system ... so long as you don't distribute the code and/or binaries together. This is how a lot of out-of-tree drivers and filesystems work in Linux. There are even apps that make managing this easier. For example, Debian ships with module-assistant that handles the downloading of source, compiling, and installing on your system. All without being affected by the GPL-ness of the kernel, or the non-GPL-ness of the external source code. > As a workaround, take a look at what nVidia did for their X driver - it > uses a GPL'd kernel module as a shim, which their codebase can then call > from userland. Which is essentially what the ZFS FUSE folks have been > reduced to doing. > > The nvidia shim is only needed to be able to ship the non-GPL binary driver with the GPL binary kernel. If you don't use the binaries, you don't use the shim. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Kyle McDonald wrote: If the developers distribute source code, which is then compiled and linked to the GPL code by the *end-user* then there are no issues, since the person combining the 2 codebases is not distributing the combined work further. This is absolutely always the case. Those believing otherwise have clearly not actually read GPLv2. GPLv2 is very short (as compared with GPLv3) and not difficult to read. Most people who would like to talk about GPL "incompatibility" have not read the license and don't even know what that "incompatibility" might actually mean. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: Jason King wrote: Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is GPL licensed, but I don't think that's the case. As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no legal problem with putting the CDDLd original ZFS implementation into the Linux kernel. +1 The issues are largely philosophical. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:41 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > I am aware of (and this are many) explain, linking > against an independent work creates a collective work and no > derivative work. > The GPL would only hit if a derivative work was created but even under > US > Copyright law, a derivative work is not created by linking the linux > kernel > against ZFS. There are numerous people in the community that have indicated that they believe that such linking creates a *derivative* work. Donald Becker has made this claim rather forcefully. The reality is that this is a grey area, and has not been tested in court -- especially where kernels are involved. Different people (and different jurisdictions) may interpret this differently. - Garrett ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6/11/2010 12:32 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal >> wrote: >> >>> We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to >>> linux. >>> When we posted our progress about port last year, then we came to >>> know about >>> the work on LLNL port. Since then we started working on to re-base our >>> changing on top Brian's changes. >>> >>> We are working on porting ZPL on that code. Our current status is that >>> mount/unmount is working. Most of the directory operations and >>> read/write is >>> also working. There is still lot more development work and testing that >>> needs to be going in this. But we are committed to make this happen so >>> please stay tuned. >>> >> >> Good times ahead! >> > I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that someone lawyerly has > had the appropriate discussions with the porting team about how linking > against the GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be > GPL-compatible. It doesn't matter if you distribute it outside the > general kernel source tarball, what matters is that you're linking > against a GPL program, and the old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a > non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do that. > > As a workaround, take a look at what nVidia did for their X driver - it > uses a GPL'd kernel module as a shim, which their codebase can then call > from userland. Which is essentially what the ZFS FUSE folks have been > reduced to doing. > > > If the new work is a whole new implementation of the ZFS *design* > intended for the linux kernel, then Yea! Great! (fortunately, it does > sound like this is what's going on) Otherwise, OpenSolaris CDDL'd code > can't go into a Linux kernel, module or otherwise. > Actually my understanding of this is that it revolves around distribution (copying - since it's based on copyright) of the code. If the developers distribute source code, which is then compiled and linked to the GPL code by the *end-user* then there are no issues, since the person combining the 2 codebases is not distributing the combined work further. The grey-er area (though it can still be ok if I understand correctly) is when the code is distributed pre-compiled. On one hand presumably GPL headers were used to do the compiling, but on the other it is still the *end-user* that links the 2 'programs' together and that's what really matters. I beleive this is how all the proprietary binary drivers for linux get around this issue. All the licenses do is hamper distribution. The vendors using shims may do so to make it easier to be included in major linux distributions? -Kyle > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMEi8JAAoJEEADRM+bKN5w/z0IAMMPo0tcCY2jFb0pJ5Ee6M1j HJFdpTlg5eMsyIJ/4+lj/G1haMnn2YTD5UT4LWkg5x7LSwqCtNA+lRgcTc5zoYQ3 SievVfCaJ4lal3xB2AoKLzhNd4BxDG4bLBI8S1q8LEyx+J2bhbleWpkATwegJ9N/ xA0yecoQAqxwOv3gOTr7DKbCyo/t4VxXkgKxKHauztYy5JMg/UqhRwQrKnfL4E7H 4qZpqapi81+G77d16cEpCcZvG1lgEYfMas4+5Eju5x1BteXsWs87cWZhVJLN0Pkl p+CPHSgt0CtP+Wg07ojvHRGbnm32uaLEEmN1ieb08YqEEFsLXE6l5qgEg9fv3cU= =PByp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Alex Blewitt wrote: > The GPL doesn't prevent you doing things. However, it does withdraw > the agreement that you are permitted to copy someone else's work if > you do those things. So whilst one can compile and link code together, > you may not have the rights to use other's code without every > committers individual agreement that you can copy their code. You show us here that you did not understand Copyright basics. The Copyright does not prevent you from _using_ code, it just defines rules on coopying. Let us stop here and probably continue after you asked a lawyer for some Copyright basics Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Erik Trimble wrote: > I don't want to restart something here on this list - I just wanted to > make sure that the original developers understood that there are very > possibly issues using CDDL code in conjunction with GPL'd code. If they > are indeed using OpenSolaris ZFS code, then they at very minimum should > consult an IP lawyer to get the OK. I had no problem with _this_ statement if you would change it to: I just wanted to make sure that the original developers understood that in order to find out whether there may be possibly issues using CDDL code in conjunction with GPL'd code, they should consult a lawyer that is specialized on Copyright law. If you continue send posts that claim that there most likely is an issue, you should be prepared to get corected by me. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:03, Joerg Schilling wrote: Alex Blewitt wrote: On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote: Jason King wrote: Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is GPL licensed, but I don't think that's the case. As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no legal problem with putting the CDDLd original ZFS implementation into the Linux kernel. You are sadly mistaken. From GNU.org on license compatibilities: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html What you read there is completely wrong :-( The FSF even knows that it is wrong as the FSF did never sue Veritas for publishing a modified version of GNU tar that links against close source libs from veritas. The best you can do is to ignore it and to ask independent lawyers. I encourage you to read my other post that in depth explains why the FSF publishes incorrect claims. There was nothing there other than fluff from a different website, though. And your argument "Look, it says it's Open Source here" means that they are compatible is not the generally held position of almost everyone else who has looked into this. The GPL doesn't prevent you doing things. However, it does withdraw the agreement that you are permitted to copy someone else's work if you do those things. So whilst one can compile and link code together, you may not have the rights to use other's code without every committers individual agreement that you can copy their code. The GPL doesn't prevent; it just withdraws rights - without which, you may be breaking copyright. And the GPL has been tested a number of times in court with regards to copyright violations where the GPL no longer covers you to do the same. As an observation, the Eclipse Foundation lawyers have agreed that the GPL is incompatible with the EPL for the same reasons: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On 6/11/2010 3:03 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Alex Blewitt wrote: On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote: As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no legal problem with putting the CDDLd original ZFS implementation into the Linux kernel. You are sadly mistaken. From GNU.org on license compatibilities: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html What you read there is completely wrong :-( The FSF even knows that it is wrong as the FSF did never sue Veritas for publishing a modified version of GNU tar that links against close source libs from veritas. The best you can do is to ignore it and to ask independent lawyers. I encourage you to read my other post that in depth explains why the FSF publishes incorrect claims. Jörg I don't want to restart something here on this list - I just wanted to make sure that the original developers understood that there are very possibly issues using CDDL code in conjunction with GPL'd code. If they are indeed using OpenSolaris ZFS code, then they at very minimum should consult an IP lawyer to get the OK. End of this Discussion. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Alex Blewitt wrote: > On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > Jason King wrote: > > > >> Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is > >> GPL > >> licensed, but I don't think that's the case. > > > > As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no > > legal > > problem with putting the CDDLd original ZFS implementation into the > > Linux > > kernel. > > You are sadly mistaken. > > From GNU.org on license compatibilities: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html What you read there is completely wrong :-( The FSF even knows that it is wrong as the FSF did never sue Veritas for publishing a modified version of GNU tar that links against close source libs from veritas. The best you can do is to ignore it and to ask independent lawyers. I encourage you to read my other post that in depth explains why the FSF publishes incorrect claims. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote: Jason King wrote: Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is GPL licensed, but I don't think that's the case. As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no legal problem with putting the CDDLd original ZFS implementation into the Linux kernel. You are sadly mistaken. From GNU.org on license compatibilities: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0 This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term “intellectual property”. Whether a license is classified as "Open Source" or not does not imply that all open source licenses are compatible with each other. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Jason King wrote: > Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is GPL > licensed, but I don't think that's the case. As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no legal problem with putting the CDDLd original ZFS implementation into the Linux kernel. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Erik Trimble wrote: > I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that someone lawyerly has had the > appropriate discussions with the porting team about how linking against the > GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be GPL-compatible. It > doesn't matter if you distribute it outside the general kernel source > tarball, what matters is that you're linking against a GPL program, and the > old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do that. It can of course also be distributed _inside_ the linux kernel tarball. Note that the FSF is very eager about having the GPL be an approved OSS license. Any OSS approved license need fo follow these rules: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and in these rules you should check paragraph 9: > 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about their own software. < > If the new work is a whole new implementation of the ZFS *design* intended > for the linux kernel, then Yea! Great! (fortunately, it does sound like this > is what's going on) Otherwise, OpenSolaris CDDL'd code can't go into a Linux > kernel, module or otherwise. You are obviously wrong here! There is absolutely no problem with the original ZFS implementation going into the Linux kernel. The CDDL explicitely allows this and ZFS is a separate work. paragraph 9 in http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php requires the GPL to permit a separate work to be distrubuted along with GPL software. As all _independent_ lawyers I am aware of (and this are many) explain, linking against an independent work creates a collective work and no derivative work. The GPL would only hit if a derivative work was created but even under US Copyright law, a derivative work is not created by linking the linux kernel against ZFS. In case you don't know: The FSF is also very eager to explain you that the GPL should be interpreted as a "license" (a US law specific construct) instead of being a contract. The US Copyright law limits what you may legally put into a "license". What you may legally put into a license is controlled by OS Copyright law section 17 § 106. see: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 The right to redefine the definition of what's a derivative work is not listed here and for this reason it cannot appear in the GPL "license" text. Linking unmodified works definitely does not create a derivative work but rather a collective work and in order to create a derivative work you need to make modifications that are copyrightable. As you see, creating a derivative work is a hurdle that cannot be made easily P.S. This are slightly modifies excerpts from a paper on OSS license compatibility written by my collegue Thomas Gordon (he is US lawyer). I will publish the whole paper next tuesday. For now, you may read the section on the GPL http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf from Lawrence Rosen. He also explains why many of the claims in the GPL will never stand in court. PP.S.: Did you know that FreeBSD _includes_ the GPLd Reiserfs in the FreeBSD kernel since a while and that nobody did complain about this, see e.g.: http://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/8/sys/gnu/fs/reiserfs/ Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal >> wrote: >> >>> >>> We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to >>> linux. >>> When we posted our progress about port last year, then we came to know >>> about >>> the work on LLNL port. Since then we started working on to re-base our >>> changing on top Brian's changes. >>> >>> We are working on porting ZPL on that code. Our current status is that >>> mount/unmount is working. Most of the directory operations and read/write >>> is >>> also working. There is still lot more development work and testing that >>> needs to be going in this. But we are committed to make this happen so >>> please stay tuned. >>> >> >> Good times ahead! >> > > I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that someone lawyerly has had > the appropriate discussions with the porting team about how linking against > the GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be GPL-compatible. > It doesn't matter if you distribute it outside the general kernel source > tarball, what matters is that you're linking against a GPL program, and the > old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do > that. > > As a workaround, take a look at what nVidia did for their X driver - it uses > a GPL'd kernel module as a shim, which their codebase can then call from > userland. Which is essentially what the ZFS FUSE folks have been reduced to > doing. How does EMC get away with it with powerpath, or Symantec with VxVM and VxFS? -- I don't recall any shim modules with either product on Linux when I used them at a previous job, yet they're still there. > If the new work is a whole new implementation of the ZFS *design* intended > for the linux kernel, then Yea! Great! (fortunately, it does sound like > this is what's going on) Otherwise, OpenSolaris CDDL'd code can't go into a > Linux kernel, module or otherwise. Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is GPL licensed, but I don't think that's the case. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
I'm very excited. Throw some code up on github as soon as you are able. I'm sure there are plenty of people (me) that would like to help test it out. I've already been playing around with ZFS using zvol on Fedora 12. I would love to have a ZPL, no matter how experimental. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote: On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal wrote: We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to linux. When we posted our progress about port last year, then we came to know about the work on LLNL port. Since then we started working on to re-base our changing on top Brian's changes. We are working on porting ZPL on that code. Our current status is that mount/unmount is working. Most of the directory operations and read/write is also working. There is still lot more development work and testing that needs to be going in this. But we are committed to make this happen so please stay tuned. Good times ahead! I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that someone lawyerly has had the appropriate discussions with the porting team about how linking against the GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be GPL-compatible. It doesn't matter if you distribute it outside the general kernel source tarball, what matters is that you're linking against a GPL program, and the old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do that. As a workaround, take a look at what nVidia did for their X driver - it uses a GPL'd kernel module as a shim, which their codebase can then call from userland. Which is essentially what the ZFS FUSE folks have been reduced to doing. If the new work is a whole new implementation of the ZFS *design* intended for the linux kernel, then Yea! Great! (fortunately, it does sound like this is what's going on) Otherwise, OpenSolaris CDDL'd code can't go into a Linux kernel, module or otherwise. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal wrote: > We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to linux. > When we posted our progress about port last year, then we came to know about > the work on LLNL port. Since then we started working on to re-base our > changing on top Brian's changes. > > We are working on porting ZPL on that code. Our current status is that > mount/unmount is working. Most of the directory operations and read/write is > also working. There is still lot more development work and testing that > needs to be going in this. But we are committed to make this happen so > please stay tuned. Good times ahead! ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Hi Brandon, Thanks for providing update on this. We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to linux. When we posted our progress about port last year, then we came to know about the work on LLNL port. Since then we started working on to re-base our changing on top Brian's changes. We are working on porting ZPL on that code. Our current status is that mount/unmount is working. Most of the directory operations and read/write is also working. There is still lot more development work and testing that needs to be going in this. But we are committed to make this happen so please stay tuned. Regards, Anurag. On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Brandon High wrote: > http://www.osnews.com/story/23416/Native_ZFS_Port_for_Linux > > Native ZFS Port for Linux > posted by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 10:15 UTC, submitted by kragil > > Employees of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have ported > Sun's/Oracle's ZFS natively to Linux. Linux already had a ZFS port in > userspace via FUSE, since license incompatibilities between the CDDL > and GPL prevent ZFS from becoming part of the Linux kernel. This > project solves the licensing issue by distributing ZFS as a separate > kernel module users will have to download and build for themselves. > I'm assuming most of us are aware of the licensing issues when it > comes to the CDDL and the GPL. ZFS is an awesome piece of work, but > because of this, it was never ported to the Linux kernel - at least, > not as part of the actual kernel. ZFS has been available as a > userspace implementation via FUSE for a while now. > > Main developer Brian Behlendorf has also stated that the Lawrence > Livermore National Laboratory has repeatedly urged Oracle to do > something about the licensing situation so that ZFS can become a part > of the kernel. "We have been working on this for some time now and > have been strongly urging Sun/Oracle to make a change to the > licensing," he explains, "I'm sorry to say we have not yet had any > luck." > > There's still some major work to be done, so this is not > production-ready code. The ZFS Posix Layer has not been implemented > yet, therefore mounting file systems is not yet possible; direct > database access, however, is. Supposedly, KQ Infotech is working on > this, but it has been rather quiet around those parts for a while now. > > "Currently in the ZFS for Linux port the only interface available from > user space is the zvol," the project's website reads, "The zvol allows > you to create a virtual block device dataset in a zfs storage pool. > While this may not immediately seem like a big deal it does open up > some interesting possibilities." > > As for the ZFS FUSE implementation, Behlendorf hopes that they can > share the same codebase. "In the long term I would love to support > both a native in-kernel posix layer and a fuse based posix layer," he > explains, "The way the code is structured you actually build the same > ZFS code once in the kernel as a set of modules and a second time as a > set of shared libraries. The in-kernel version is used by Lustre, the > ZVOL, and will eventually be used by the native posix layer." > > This sounds like good news, but a lot of work still needs to be done. > By the way, I hope I got all the details right on this one - this is > hardly my field of expertise. Feel free to correct me. > > -- > Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > -- Anurag Agarwal CEO, Founder KQ Infotech, Pune www.kqinfotech.com 9881254401 Coordinator Akshar Bharati www.aksharbharati.org Spreading joy through reading ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Joerg Schilling wrote: > This viedo is not interesting, it is wrong. > Danese Cooper claims incorrect things and her claims have already been > verified wrong by Simon Phipps. > > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=55013#55008 > > Hope this helps. > >Jörg I see it's a pretty heated and involved discussion :) So according to Simon Phipps the reason behind using CDDL was simply pragmatical (to push the code out earlier). But whatever the original intent was, now it's Oracle who will decide whether to change it or not. And Oracle is not too talkative about such things :) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Hillel Lubman wrote: > A very interesting video from DebConf, which addresses CDDL and GPL > incompatibility issues, and some original reasoning behind CDDL usage: > > http://caesar.acc.umu.se/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg This viedo is not interesting, it is wrong. Danese Cooper claims incorrect things and her claims have already been verified wrong by Simon Phipps. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=55013#55008 Hope this helps. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
A very interesting video from DebConf, which addresses CDDL and GPL incompatibility issues, and some original reasoning behind CDDL usage: http://caesar.acc.umu.se/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
> Native ZFS for Linux Very good to see that there is such effort in progress. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Fredrich Maney wrote: > Not to be too harsh, but as long as you can't mount filesystems, it > seems to just be hype/vaporware to me. It's a big step in the right direction. You can still use zvols to create ext3 filesystems, and use the zpool for disk management and snapshots. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Thanks for posting this, but these two sentences seem to contradict each other: "Employees of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have ported Sun's/Oracle's ZFS natively to Linux." "The ZFS Posix Layer has not been implemented yet, therefore mounting file systems is not yet possible" Not to be too harsh, but as long as you can't mount filesystems, it seems to just be hype/vaporware to me. fpsm On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Brandon High wrote: > http://www.osnews.com/story/23416/Native_ZFS_Port_for_Linux > > Native ZFS Port for Linux > posted by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 10:15 UTC, submitted by kragil > > Employees of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have ported > Sun's/Oracle's ZFS natively to Linux. Linux already had a ZFS port in > userspace via FUSE, since license incompatibilities between the CDDL > and GPL prevent ZFS from becoming part of the Linux kernel. This > project solves the licensing issue by distributing ZFS as a separate > kernel module users will have to download and build for themselves. > I'm assuming most of us are aware of the licensing issues when it > comes to the CDDL and the GPL. ZFS is an awesome piece of work, but > because of this, it was never ported to the Linux kernel - at least, > not as part of the actual kernel. ZFS has been available as a > userspace implementation via FUSE for a while now. > > Main developer Brian Behlendorf has also stated that the Lawrence > Livermore National Laboratory has repeatedly urged Oracle to do > something about the licensing situation so that ZFS can become a part > of the kernel. "We have been working on this for some time now and > have been strongly urging Sun/Oracle to make a change to the > licensing," he explains, "I'm sorry to say we have not yet had any > luck." > > There's still some major work to be done, so this is not > production-ready code. The ZFS Posix Layer has not been implemented > yet, therefore mounting file systems is not yet possible; direct > database access, however, is. Supposedly, KQ Infotech is working on > this, but it has been rather quiet around those parts for a while now. > > "Currently in the ZFS for Linux port the only interface available from > user space is the zvol," the project's website reads, "The zvol allows > you to create a virtual block device dataset in a zfs storage pool. > While this may not immediately seem like a big deal it does open up > some interesting possibilities." > > As for the ZFS FUSE implementation, Behlendorf hopes that they can > share the same codebase. "In the long term I would love to support > both a native in-kernel posix layer and a fuse based posix layer," he > explains, "The way the code is structured you actually build the same > ZFS code once in the kernel as a set of modules and a second time as a > set of shared libraries. The in-kernel version is used by Lustre, the > ZVOL, and will eventually be used by the native posix layer." > > This sounds like good news, but a lot of work still needs to be done. > By the way, I hope I got all the details right on this one - this is > hardly my field of expertise. Feel free to correct me. > > -- > Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
http://www.osnews.com/story/23416/Native_ZFS_Port_for_Linux Native ZFS Port for Linux posted by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 10:15 UTC, submitted by kragil Employees of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have ported Sun's/Oracle's ZFS natively to Linux. Linux already had a ZFS port in userspace via FUSE, since license incompatibilities between the CDDL and GPL prevent ZFS from becoming part of the Linux kernel. This project solves the licensing issue by distributing ZFS as a separate kernel module users will have to download and build for themselves. I'm assuming most of us are aware of the licensing issues when it comes to the CDDL and the GPL. ZFS is an awesome piece of work, but because of this, it was never ported to the Linux kernel - at least, not as part of the actual kernel. ZFS has been available as a userspace implementation via FUSE for a while now. Main developer Brian Behlendorf has also stated that the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has repeatedly urged Oracle to do something about the licensing situation so that ZFS can become a part of the kernel. "We have been working on this for some time now and have been strongly urging Sun/Oracle to make a change to the licensing," he explains, "I'm sorry to say we have not yet had any luck." There's still some major work to be done, so this is not production-ready code. The ZFS Posix Layer has not been implemented yet, therefore mounting file systems is not yet possible; direct database access, however, is. Supposedly, KQ Infotech is working on this, but it has been rather quiet around those parts for a while now. "Currently in the ZFS for Linux port the only interface available from user space is the zvol," the project's website reads, "The zvol allows you to create a virtual block device dataset in a zfs storage pool. While this may not immediately seem like a big deal it does open up some interesting possibilities." As for the ZFS FUSE implementation, Behlendorf hopes that they can share the same codebase. "In the long term I would love to support both a native in-kernel posix layer and a fuse based posix layer," he explains, "The way the code is structured you actually build the same ZFS code once in the kernel as a set of modules and a second time as a set of shared libraries. The in-kernel version is used by Lustre, the ZVOL, and will eventually be used by the native posix layer." This sounds like good news, but a lot of work still needs to be done. By the way, I hope I got all the details right on this one - this is hardly my field of expertise. Feel free to correct me. -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
