[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS + ISCSI + LINUX QUESTIONS
Al, Has there been any resolution to this problem? I get it repeatedly on my 5-500GB Raidz configuration. I sometimes get port drop/reconnect errors when this occurs. Gary 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] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Therein lies the difference in perspective. Linux folks thinks it's OpenSolaris's fault that ZFS cannot be integrated into Linux. OpenSolaris folks do not think so. The OpenSolaris folks here seem to think it's Linux' fault. Impasse. Let me repeat it again: The main problem is a technical problem of porting. The CDDL allows code under the CDDL to be combined with any other type of code. It would be interesting to read a claim that proves that a possible (not even proven) license problem makes it a problem at the OpenSolaris side. If someone is really interested in ZFS on Linux, he should go on and start the port. Once he is ready and the Linux folks are interested in ZFS, I am shure the license problems will have gone away ;-) Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/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] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 18/04/07, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why would it need to be? As long as you don't distribute it as part of the Linux kernel or with a Linux kernel, you should be perfectly fine. (It is the end user who gets to assemble the bits; he cannot distribute the results any further but an enduser is not bound by any of the GPL terms which specifically restrict the way in you can copy or redistribute) Casper ___ It doesn't work that way. If the code can be considered to be part of a larger whole, then it gets covered by the GPL. Doesn't matter if you distribute the code section separately. The sticky part is what constitutes a whole - are kernel modules considered part of the Linux kernel as a whole? That's the legal grey area; the general Linux community seems to be on the side of yes. It's a similar problem as to linking against a GPL'd library. There isn't a good definition (legal or otherwise) as to what constitutes a separate program, and what is an extention to an existing program. I don't agree with that interpretation, and I can cite so many examples that disprove it. Also, I have seen several people here claim that nVidia/ATi have a GPL shim for their driver, which at last check is NOT true. Even if they did, Stallman has stated quite clearly that such a mechanism is not sufficient to bypass the requirements of the GPL. vmware, ATi, nVidia, Veritas, and *many* other vendors all have binary-only kernel modules with or without shims or any kind and have no issue distributing their modules. I believe they all have to be compiled or linked to work with the current kernel version, but it seems to bypass the licensing issues. Linus seems to support this view: nVidia: http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/234 http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/5/125 http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/10/152 General: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/13/370 In short, code that was written without any _Linux_ origin can probably be ported and distributed without issue in his view though a Judge could decide otherwise and some kernel developers feel otherwise. -- Less is only more where more is no good. --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Gents, how come this thread - without any relation to zfs at all - is discussed on this list? Do move this irrelevant thread to another fora. My intentions subscribing to this list was *not* to read about lay-man's perception of this nor that license! regards Claus On 4/18/07, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/04/07, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why would it need to be? As long as you don't distribute it as part of the Linux kernel or with a Linux kernel, you should be perfectly fine. (It is the end user who gets to assemble the bits; he cannot distribute the results any further but an enduser is not bound by any of the GPL terms which specifically restrict the way in you can copy or redistribute) Casper ___ It doesn't work that way. If the code can be considered to be part of a larger whole, then it gets covered by the GPL. Doesn't matter if you distribute the code section separately. The sticky part is what constitutes a whole - are kernel modules considered part of the Linux kernel as a whole? That's the legal grey area; the general Linux community seems to be on the side of yes. It's a similar problem as to linking against a GPL'd library. There isn't a good definition (legal or otherwise) as to what constitutes a separate program, and what is an extention to an existing program. I don't agree with that interpretation, and I can cite so many examples that disprove it. Also, I have seen several people here claim that nVidia/ATi have a GPL shim for their driver, which at last check is NOT true. Even if they did, Stallman has stated quite clearly that such a mechanism is not sufficient to bypass the requirements of the GPL. vmware, ATi, nVidia, Veritas, and *many* other vendors all have binary-only kernel modules with or without shims or any kind and have no issue distributing their modules. I believe they all have to be compiled or linked to work with the current kernel version, but it seems to bypass the licensing issues. Linus seems to support this view: nVidia: http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/234 http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/5/125 http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/10/152 General: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/13/370 In short, code that was written without any _Linux_ origin can probably be ported and distributed without issue in his view though a Judge could decide otherwise and some kernel developers feel otherwise. -- Less is only more where more is no good. --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.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
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Claus Guttesen wrote: Gents, how come this thread - without any relation to zfs at all - is discussed on this list? Do move this irrelevant thread to another fora. My intentions subscribing to this list was *not* to read about lay-man's perception of this nor that license! Because discussing licensing issues is something that anyone and everyone can do easily by adding their $0.02 worth. Actually sitting down and doing something hard (like porting ZFS - one way or another - to Linux), well, the word procrastination comes to mind and gee, isn't it easier to come up with reasons /not/ to do it? If someone really wanted ZFS on Linux, they'd just do it - licence/patents be damned. Darren ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually sitting down and doing something hard (like porting ZFS - one way or another - to Linux), well, the word procrastination comes to mind and gee, isn't it easier to come up with reasons /not/ to do it? If someone really wanted ZFS on Linux, they'd just do it - licence/patents be damned. It seems that those people are a minority who know that.. A discussion on porting starting with a license talk means that there is no real technical interest on the port. ZFS is a piece of code that is published under a free licence that does not prevent using it with other code. Asking in this list is asking the wrong people. In addition, I believe Sun will not sue people who use ZFS because it is allowed. I do not understand why some people from the Linux camp believe that there is a problem, except when they believe that Linux is not free enough ;-) Let me repeat it another time: If there is interest on having ZFS on Linux, people should start a port! You cannot enforce such a port, you may just create the needed freedom in the code and the CDDL used for ZFS gives enough freedom. This has been proven by the FreeBSD people and by Apple. If the license discussion continues, I get the impression that some people from the Linux camp are just jealous because they believe that Linux is not free enough for using ZFS. Well, I believe that the GPL gives that freedom, why do those Linux people believe that there is a problem? So please can we have a discussion based on technical problems and not waste time with endless license discussions? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/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] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:36:38AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually sitting down and doing something hard (like porting ZFS - one way or another - to Linux), well, the word procrastination comes to mind and gee, isn't it easier to come up with reasons /not/ to do it? If someone really wanted ZFS on Linux, they'd just do it - licence/patents be damned. It seems that those people are a minority who know that.. A discussion on porting starting with a license talk means that there is no real technical interest on the port. Boy, is that ever the truth. If there is technical interest in a port, one should, um, do the port. Frankly, the license chatter emanating from the lwn.net crowd smells like just another way of expressing NIH -- it's a convenient excuse to not do something that they really don't want to do anyway. (This certainly seems to be the case for DTrace and Linux, where the license difference seems to have become an excuse to ignore everything about DTrace and to do their own thing.) And I will confess that I have found the sense of NIH coming out of certain segments of Linux development to be at times so overwhelming that I have found myself wondering: if we GPL'd Solaris, would that not give the lie to this excuse, and expose the Linux NIH for what it is? Especially ironic about the Linux NIH is that it seems to be a relatively new phenomenon: not so long ago, the ability to absorb innovation from elsewhere was arguably Linux's stock-in-trade. That era, however, seems to be indisuputably over, viz. the stubborn reluctance to so much as glance at ZFS, DTrace and a host of other innovations born outside of Linux... - Bryan -- Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Well, I tried. It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to my recent conclusions, I must. I brought up the notion of a Linux port on the Linux-kernel mailing list. Whilst the response is very high in number of posts, there has been a general understanding that the non-compatibility of the CDDL and GPL licenses is the show-stopper. Also agreed is that Linux can not change from GPL. So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? The reader may feel free to respond to me personally and in confidence, knowing that I shall mot divulge the contents our correspondence. If the general consensus is that I need to consult a lawyer, I will say outright that I have no intentions of doing so if I must pay, but gladly will if this service can be provided for free. Cheers. -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? -- Just me, Wire ... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I tried. It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to my recent conclusions, I must. You know that this is not the way things work on Linux? Is I noted before, the bigger problem would be the different VFS interface in Linux. Linux people in general do not plan things but just discuss things that are already ready to use. I brought up the notion of a Linux port on the Linux-kernel mailing list. Whilst the response is very high in number of posts, there has been a general understanding that the non-compatibility of the CDDL and GPL licenses is the show-stopper. Also agreed is that Linux can not change from GPL. So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? The reader may feel free to respond to me personally and in confidence, knowing that I shall mot divulge the contents our correspondence. The problem with such discussions is not that the code combination would be impossible but that the people from Linux discuss on a wrong base that makes the combination impossible. ZFS is not part of the Linux Kernel. Only if you declare ZFS a part of Linux, you will observe the license conflict. The GPL is talking about works and there is no problem to use GPL code together with code under other licenses as long as this is mere aggregation (like creating a driver for Linux) instead of creating a derived work. It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/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] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver. Using ZFS with Linux would be mere aggregation (see GPL text). Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/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] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? Do you want to spam *EVERY* open source project asking to change the license to GPL so that you can use it with Linux?? How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Rayson -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
As Joerg noted (and I've looked at fairly extensively), the VFS layer in Linux is radically different than either FreeBSD or Solaris, and ZFS would require extensive reworking before being implemented - the port is nowhere near as simple as the one from Solaris to FreeBSD. Also, note that kernel modules are considered part of the kernel and covered by the derivative portion of the GPL, at least in the eyes of most Linux folks. ATI and nVidia get around this issue by producing a GPL'd kernel module which provides stable ABI/API across many different linux releases, then have their relevant drivers call this. Theoretically, this might be possible with ZFS, but given that ZFS may need deep interfacing with the VFS layers, I can't see how a clean separation between a GPL'd ZFS kernel module (which you'd have to write from scratch) and a CDDL'd driver can be made. It simply isn't going to happen, any more than you're going to be able to take the GPL'd reiserFS Linux driver and port it directly into FreeBSD or Solaris. And, frankly, I can think of several very good reasons why Sun would NOT want to release a ZFS under the GPL - specifically, Linux is a direct competitor to Solaris, and it does not benefit Sun (or, ultimately, everyone) for all of Solaris' features to be directly incorporated into Linux. Application-level compatibility between Linux and Solaris is desirable for everyone, but there are still significant advantages to OS-level feature differentiation. I do not speak for Sun on this matter, nor would I presume that my opinion is held by others here; it's just my opinion. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17/04/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I tried. It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to my recent conclusions, I must. You know that this is not the way things work on Linux? If you refer to the licensing, yes. Coding-wise, I have no idea exept to say that I would be VERY surprised if ZFS can not be ported to Linux, especially since there already exists the FUSE project. Is I noted before, the bigger problem would be the different VFS interface in Linux. Linux people in general do not plan things but just discuss things that are already ready to use. Excellent! There is talk of the (some-what) technical issues related to a port. Carry on! I brought up the notion of a Linux port on the Linux-kernel mailing list. Whilst the response is very high in number of posts, there has been a general understanding that the non-compatibility of the CDDL and GPL licenses is the show-stopper. Also agreed is that Linux can not change from GPL. So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? The reader may feel free to respond to me personally and in confidence, knowing that I shall mot divulge the contents our correspondence. The problem with such discussions is not that the code combination would be impossible but that the people from Linux discuss on a wrong base that makes the combination impossible. ZFS is not part of the Linux Kernel. Only if you declare ZFS a part of Linux, you will observe the license conflict. And, as brought up elsewhere, ZFS would have to be a part of the Kernel -- or else some persons would have to employ Herculean attention to make sure ZFS was upgraded with the kernel. if some one were willing to do this, a swift resolution MAY ba possible. The GPL is talking about works and there is no problem to use GPL code together with code under other licenses as long as this is mere aggregation (like creating a driver for Linux) instead of creating a derived work. It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. Indeed? What are these reasons? I want to have every thing in the open. -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17/04/07, Rayson Ho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? Do you want to spam *EVERY* open source project asking to change the license to GPL so that you can use it with Linux?? Not at all! I'm very serious and even more curious. Nor am I asking you to change licenses. I, as always, wish only to satisfy my curiosity. How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-) -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Joerg Schilling wrote: David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver. Using ZFS with Linux would be mere aggregation (see GPL text). Jörg No, the general consensus amongst Linux folks is that kernel modules calling any kernel code are considered part of the Linux kernel; this is still up for legal debate, of course, but this kind of very dark grey area is something that Sun's lawyers hate. Which means that having a CDDL'd kernel driver is going to turn them sickly green, because of the _very_ unknown legality of it. This issue is exactly why ATI/nVidia have their own GPL'd kernel modules, but a proprietary driver. As I mentioned before, ZFS almost certainly needs Linux VFS hooks, which are _definitely_ going to be considered GPL'd code, and thus, ZFS would be required to be GPL-compatible. About the best I can suggest is that you look at the ZFS code and see where it requires VFS access, and then write a kernel module which exports a specific API to the kernel VFS layer, and port the ZFS code to use that new API. Go look at the aforementioned nVidia drivers for an example of how they do it. Or, maybe even look at the OSS (Open Sound System) code for how to provide this kind of meta-API. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-) While ZFS is nice, I don't think it is a must for most desktop users. For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world population) people who just use the computers to browse the web, check emails, do word processing, etc... don't care. Even if they do care, I don't think those who do not backup their drive can really understand how to use ZFS. And, freeing the office file format is way more important than to port ZFS to Linux. I believe Sun has other important things to work on than to relicense Solaris to GPL. Rayson -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you refer to the licensing, yes. Coding-wise, I have no idea exept to say that I would be VERY surprised if ZFS can not be ported to Linux, especially since there already exists the FUSE project. So if you are interested in this project, I would encourage you to just start with the code... ZFS is not part of the Linux Kernel. Only if you declare ZFS a part of Linux, you will observe the license conflict. And, as brought up elsewhere, ZFS would have to be a part of the Kernel -- or else some persons would have to employ Herculean attention to make sure ZFS was upgraded with the kernel. if some one were willing to do this, a swift resolution MAY ba possible. The fact that someone may put the ZFS sources in the Linux source tree does not make it a part of that software And it seems that you missunderstand the way the Linux kernel is developed. If _you_ started a ZFS project for Linux, _you_ would need to maintain it too or otherwise it would not be kept up to date. Note that it is a well known fact that a lot of the non-mainstream parts of the linux kernel sources do not work although they _are_ part of the linux kernel source tree. Creating a port does not mean that you may forget about it once you believe that you are ready. The GPL is talking about works and there is no problem to use GPL code together with code under other licenses as long as this is mere aggregation (like creating a driver for Linux) instead of creating a derived work. It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. Indeed? What are these reasons? I want to have every thing in the open. This is something you would need to ask the Linux kernel folks Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/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] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver. Using ZFS with Linux would be mere aggregation (see GPL text). Jörg No, the general consensus amongst Linux folks is that kernel modules calling any kernel code are considered part of the Linux kernel; this is still up for legal debate, of course, but this kind of very dark grey area is something that Sun's lawyers hate. Which means that having a CDDL'd kernel driver is going to turn them sickly green, because of the _very_ unknown legality of it. Well, a German author definitely may do this as the German Copuyright law allows to use a minor part of other peoples work without asking in case that there is a note on this fact. This is called: Wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat. I believe that the US Copyright law has a similar exception (called fair use) but you need to ask the author. This issue is exactly why ATI/nVidia have their own GPL'd kernel modules, but a proprietary driver. As I mentioned before, ZFS almost certainly needs Linux VFS hooks, which are _definitely_ going to be considered GPL'd code, and thus, ZFS would be required to be GPL-compatible. About the best I can suggest is that you look at the ZFS code and see where it requires VFS access, and then write a kernel module which exports a specific API to the kernel VFS layer, and port the ZFS code to use that new API. Go look at the aforementioned nVidia drivers for an example of how they do it. Or, maybe even look at the OSS (Open Sound System) code for how to provide this kind of meta-API. With knowledge on the fastly changing Linux kernel interfaces, this seems to be the best way to go anyway :-) Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/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] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17/04/07, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, frankly, I can think of several very good reasons why Sun would NOT want to release a ZFS under the GPL Not to mention the knock-on effects of those already using ZFS (apple, BSD) who would be adversely affected by a GPL license. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Hello Rayson, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote: RH On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-) RH While ZFS is nice, I don't think it is a must for most desktop users. RH For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world RH population) people who just use the computers to browse the web, check RH emails, do word processing, etc... don't care. Even if they do care, I RH don't think those who do not backup their drive can really understand RH how to use ZFS. I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop, mostly for its built-in reliability, free snapshots, built-in compression and cryptography (soon) and easy to use. ps. few days ago I encountered my first checksum error on my desktop system on a submirror (two sata drives in a zfs mirror). Thanks to zfs it won't be a problem and it's already repaired. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007 without ZFS dominating the agenda?? http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/ That long fscks should be a hot topic, given the state of the art, is just bizarre. --Toby Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http:// schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/ pub/schily ___ 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17-Apr-07, at 10:56 AM, James C. McPherson wrote: Toby Thain wrote: It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007 without ZFS dominating the agenda?? http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/ That long fscks should be a hot topic, given the state of the art, is just bizarre. Reading through the topics in that article, I get a real sense of NIH syndrome. The presentation on the fsck problem in 2013 ... if you're still using a filesystem in 2013 that requires you to fsck then I reckon you deserve what you get! That's 6 years away, surely even linux fs developers can come up with something better in that time. They already did, in Reiser 3 4, which makes it even stranger. --Toby cheers, James C. McPherson -- Solaris kernel software engineer Sun Microsystems ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Hello Toby, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 3:39:39 PM, you wrote: It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. TT I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. TT How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007 TT without ZFS dominating the agenda?? TT http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/ Simply because it is Linux Storage and File Systems Workshop. You won't expects presentations on raiserfs at Open Solaris conference and definitely you won't expect it to dominate conference. And what they can do other than to ignore zfs? Right now Linux has nothing even close to zfs. Now many Linux people are just sys admins and they should be interested in zfs. The question is if suvh conferences should be mostly related to Linux when it comes to open source? I strongly belive not. It's up to our community and to Sun to engage several conferences and in a way to advocate about technologies like zfs, dtrace, etc. Even if we're talking about small, local meetings. Of course many people, especially from Linux crowd, will react defensively when they will see Open Solaris topics on their conferences, but hey - lets try to keep an open mind. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
this port was done in the case of QFS how come they managed to release a QFS for linux? On 4/17/07, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver. Using ZFS with Linux would be mere aggregation (see GPL text). Jörg No, the general consensus amongst Linux folks is that kernel modules calling any kernel code are considered part of the Linux kernel; this is still up for legal debate, of course, but this kind of very dark grey area is something that Sun's lawyers hate. Which means that having a CDDL'd kernel driver is going to turn them sickly green, because of the _very_ unknown legality of it. This issue is exactly why ATI/nVidia have their own GPL'd kernel modules, but a proprietary driver. As I mentioned before, ZFS almost certainly needs Linux VFS hooks, which are _definitely_ going to be considered GPL'd code, and thus, ZFS would be required to be GPL-compatible. About the best I can suggest is that you look at the ZFS code and see where it requires VFS access, and then write a kernel module which exports a specific API to the kernel VFS layer, and port the ZFS code to use that new API. Go look at the aforementioned nVidia drivers for an example of how they do it. Or, maybe even look at the OSS (Open Sound System) code for how to provide this kind of meta-API. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Toby Thain wrote: It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007 without ZFS dominating the agenda?? http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/ That long fscks should be a hot topic, given the state of the art, is just bizarre. Reading through the topics in that article, I get a real sense of NIH syndrome. The presentation on the fsck problem in 2013 ... if you're still using a filesystem in 2013 that requires you to fsck then I reckon you deserve what you get! That's 6 years away, surely even linux fs developers can come up with something better in that time. cheers, James C. McPherson -- Solaris kernel software engineer Sun Microsystems ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. That matters to the developers of ZFS/OpenSolaris how? Also, note that we are not sure if GPL really matters in the case of porting a filesystem to Linux. As others have brought up, there are many commercial file systems/volume managers available in Linux as well. On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? Therein lies the difference in perspective. Linux folks thinks it's OpenSolaris's fault that ZFS cannot be integrated into Linux. OpenSolaris folks do not think so. If I'm your neighbour and I'm looking at expanding my house in your direction, should you move out of the way? -- Just me, Wire ... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17-Apr-07, at 10:54 PM, Wee Yeh Tan wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. That matters to the developers of ZFS/OpenSolaris how? Also, note that we are not sure if GPL really matters in the case of porting a filesystem to Linux. As others have brought up, there are many commercial file systems/volume managers available in Linux as well. On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? Therein lies the difference in perspective. Linux folks thinks it's OpenSolaris's fault that ZFS cannot be integrated into Linux. OpenSolaris folks do not think so. The OpenSolaris folks here seem to think it's Linux' fault. Impasse. But I'm sworn not to discuss this here :) --T If I'm your neighbour and I'm looking at expanding my house in your direction, should you move out of the way? -- Just me, Wire ... ___ 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] Re: ZFS and Linux
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL licensors (myself included). Nothing wrong with GPL as an abstract ideology. But when ideology trumps practicality (which it does when code can't be as widely reused as possible), I have a problem with that. As far as I'm concerned, GPL is to open licenses as political correctness is to free speech. Of course, anyone who writes something is free to use any license they please. And anyone else is free to choose an incompatible license, either for reasons that have nothing specifically to do with being incompatible, or because they just don't want the sucking sound of their goodies being adopted and very little being returned (which strikes me as a major element of the relationship between Linux and *BSD; although to be sure, there is some two-way cooperation). I have zero problem with Linux using GPLv2 (and as some have said, perhaps being stuck with it at this point). I'm not sure I'd want their code anyway, and even if I did, I darn sure wouldn't want the we don't need no steekin' DDI 'cause we're source based philosophy that comes with it, because to my mind that ends up justifying a lot of poor design and engineering discipline in the name of not being limited by backwards compatibility. So, if having chosen a license based on the ideology of being a lever to free other software (but on their terms!) for the sake of being compatible with them, the Linux folks now have to re-invent equivalents of ZFS and Dtrace, it serves them right, IMO. And as someone else also mentioned, competition is good anyway. Not as if a lot of ideas don't cross-pollinate. But if every free OS used compatible licenses, I think 20 years later, the result would resemble the result of inbreeding...not pretty, and a shallower meme pool overall. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux 2.6
Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There have been extensive discussions on loadable modules and licensing w/r/t the GPLv2 in the linux kernel. nVidia, amongst others, pushed hard to allow for non-GPL-compatible licensed code to be allowed as a Linux kernel module. However, the kernel developers' consensus seems to have come down against modifying the current kernel GPL license to allow for non-GPL'd loadable modules. If ever, you would not need to modify the GPL (you are not allowed to do so anyway), but the Linux kernel code would need changes to have more clean interfaces. It would be interesting to know whether the Linux kernel folks are willing to accept this approach. I doubt it. It would be easier if we can map all of the Solaris APIs that are used in ZFS with Linux's. For instance, the VOP_XXX functions, and the synchronization facility, spinlock_t to Solaris kmutex_t etc. Then, we don't need to worry about whether ZFS is part of Linux kernel project. Depending on the type of a loadable module and on the country where the Author is located (and the local Gopyright law), it looks like non-GPL modules are usually allowed unless you try to incorporate these modules into the Linux _project_ itself. The GPL only requires that all files from a single project (Work) are under GPL. As I would call ZFS a separate project, it may be under a separate and different license. Note that if the people who like to disallow code under non-GPL lisenses like CDDLd code to be used together with GPLd projects, these people must (if they would be consistent) also demand that GPLd projects may not use LGPLd libraries (as these libs usually cannot be relicensed under GPL). Conclusion: it is a problem that lives in the mind of the Linux kernel people that cannot be fixed unless these people start having a more realistic view on the problem. I understand the concern for the Linux kernel.. In order to make ZFS to be part of Linux distribution, some of the Linux kernel APIs may need to be changed. It is not an easy task because there is so much code dependent on the APIs. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu ss This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux 2.6
div id=jive-html-wrapper-div James Dickens wrote: blockquote cite=midcd09bdd10611062233q6dde0c0clc8033761832e9ab2 mail.gmail.com type=citebr br divspan class=gmail_quoteOn 11/6/06, b class=gmail_sendernameYuen L. Lee/b a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] /a wrote:/span blockquote class=gmail_quote tyle=border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;I'm curious whether there is a version of Linux 2.6 ZFS available?br Many thanks./blockquote divbr rry there is no ZFS in Linux, and given current stands of Linus Torvalds and the current Kernel team there never will be, because Linux is GPLv2 and it is incompatible with ZFS that is released under the CDDL license. The closest possibility to getting ZFS in Linux is through the FUSE project that is porting ZFS to userland that runs inside Linux but is not in the kernel so not limited by the license argument. br /div /div /blockquote Just in case it isn't mentioned by someone else, many of the OpenSolaris folks would probably encourage you, Yuen, to bring this up with the Linux kernel folks. Obviously, things like filesystems are very useful to have implementations of on many platforms (i.e. people should own their data, their operating systems shouldn't). br br I'm not an expert (nor am I offering legal advice), but my understanding of GPLv2 is the copyright holder can explicitly state exceptions on linking, so they could allow linking with ZFS even though it's under the CDDL. Linux, when run on say something like a mainframe, already does link with non-GPL modules.br Thanks, Matt! I have the same understanding from my previous experience. The difference is my code may not be integrated into the official distribution. I'm interested in porting the ZFS to the Linux platform because I'm attempting to use ZFS in openfiler. I think it would be an interesting and useful project. br So my understanding is it's not a legal issue or technical issue (other than that pesky porting), but more of a whether-or-not-people-want-it. So if you want it, you should ping the appropriate Linux folks.br I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have any connections with any appropriate Linux folks. This is why I asked in the opensolaris forum to see whether there is any Linux ZFS available. Nonetheless, I'm interested in porting the ZFS to the Linux 2.6 platform. I'm hoping I can share some of the porting workload with others who share this interest. My goal is to use ZFS in my NAS openfiler. blockquote cite=midcd09bdd10611062233q6dde0c0clc8033761832e9ab2 mail.gmail.com type=cite div divbr f course its probably easier just to run Solaris Express it should have most of your favorite Linux applications allready ported, if not you can use Brandz that allows you to run most Linux apps/excutables in a Zone inside Solaris. br br mes Dickensbr a href=http://uadmin.blogspot.com;uadmin.blogspot.com /a br br bsp;/div br blockquote class=gmail_quote style=border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;This essage posted from a href=http://opensolaris.org;opensolaris.org/abr ___br zfs-discuss mailing listbr a href=mailto:zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org;zfs-discuss@ opensolaris.org /abr a href=http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs -discusshttp://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo /zfs-discuss/abr /blockquote /div br pre wrap= hr size=4 width=90% ___ zfs-discuss mailing list a class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href=mailto:zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org;zfs-discuss@ opensolaris.org/a a class=moz-txt-link-freetext href=http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs -discusshttp://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo /zfs-discuss/a /pre blockquote br br pre class=moz-signature cols=72-- Matt Ingenthron - Web Infrastructure Solutions Architect Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Client Solutions, Systems Practice a class=moz-txt-link-freetext href=http://blogs.sun.com/mingenthron/;http://blogs. sun.com/mingenthron//a email: a class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]matt.ingenthron@ sun.com/a Phone: 310-242-6439 /pre /div___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu ss 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] Re: ZFS for Linux 2.6
Yuen L. Lee wrote: Thanks, Matt! I have the same understanding from my previous experience. The difference is my code may not be integrated into the official distribution. I'm interested in porting the ZFS to the Linux platform because I'm attempting to use ZFS in openfiler. I think it would be an interesting and useful project. What about porting openfiler to OpenSolaris ? -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
