Martin Matuska m...@freebsd.org wrote:
Tim Cook tim at cook.ms writes:
You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It is
your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every time you repeated that
statement, you'd preface it with in my opinion so you don't have
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Martin Matuska
Hi guys, I am one of the ZFS porting folks at FreeBSD.
That's all really cool, and IMHO, more promising than anything I knew before.
But I'll really believe it if (a) some
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling
And people should note that Netapp filed their patents starting from 1993.
This
is 5 years after I started to develop WOFS, which is copy on write. This
still
In any case,
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling
And people should note that Netapp filed their patents
On 12/25/2010 6:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling
And people should note that Netapp filed their patents starting from 1993.
This
is 5 years after I started to develop WOFS, which
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.comwrote:
On 12/25/2010 6:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling
And people should note that Netapp filed their
On 12/25/2010 10:59 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com
mailto:opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
On 12/25/2010 11:19 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com
mailto:erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/25/2010 6:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in
question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of
Netapp filed patents (without code) in 1993, I of course have working code for
SuinOS-4.9 from 1991. Se below for more
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in
question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of
Netapp filed patents (without code) in 1993, I of
On 12/25/2010 12:16 PM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Erik Trimbleerik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in
question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of
Netapp filed patents (without code) in 1993, I of course
Tim Cook tim at cook.ms writes:
You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It is
your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every time you repeated that
statement, you'd preface it with in my opinion so you don't have people
running around believing what they're
js == Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:
GPLv3 might help with NetApp - Oracle pact while CDDL does
not.
js GPLv3 does not help at all with NetApp as the CDDL already
js includes a patent grant with the maximum possible
js coverage.
AIUI CDDL
On 12/16/10 10:24 AM -0500 Linder, Doug wrote:
Tim Cook wrote:
Claiming you'd start paying for Solaris if they gave you ZFS for free
in Linux is absolutely ridiculous.
*Start* paying? You clearly have NO idea what it costs to run Solaris in
a production environment with support.
In my
On 12/16/10 9:11 AM -0500 Linder, Doug wrote:
The only thing I'll add is that I, as I said, I really don't care at all
about licenses.
Then you have no room to complain or even suggest a specific license!
When it comes to licenses, to me (and, I suspect, the
vast majority of other OSS
On 12/16/10 11:32 AM +0100 Joerg Schilling wrote:
Note that while there existist
numerous papers from lawyers that consistently explain which parts of
the GPLv2 are violating US law and thus are void,
Can you elaborate?
___
zfs-discuss mailing
Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net wrote:
On 12/16/10 11:32 AM +0100 Joerg Schilling wrote:
Note that while there existist
numerous papers from lawyers that consistently explain which parts of
the GPLv2 are violating US law and thus are void,
Can you elaborate?
See:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack
Claiming you'd start paying for Solaris if they gave you ZFS for free
in Linux is absolutely ridiculous.
*Start* paying? You clearly have NO idea what it costs to run
Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote:
js == Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
delivered the following alternate reality of idealogical
partisan hackery:
js GPLv3 does not give you anything you don't have from CDDL
js also.
I think this is wrong. The
Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote:
* when do the CDDL patent protections apply? to deals between Oracle
and Netapp? or is it only protection against Oracle patents? I
think the latter, but then, which Oracle patents? Suppose:
The CDDL gives patent grants to all patents that relate
Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote:
bf == Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us writes:
bf Perhaps it is better for Linux if it is GPLv2, but probably
bf not if it is GPLv3.
That's my understanding: GPLv3 is the one you would need to preserve
software freedom under deals
Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
These reasons don't make CDDL incompatible with GPL. GPL is
compatible with any license which is at least as permissive as itself.
GPLv2 only requires that the recipient be able to receive all of the
source code under terms which allow
From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:47 AM
We have ZFS version 28. Whether we ever get another open source update
of ZFS from *Oracle* is at this point doubtful. However, I will point out
that
Forgive me for swinging the conversation back
Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which, I
*think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express
snapshot was taken.
Do you really see such an update?
The last time I tried, the source was frozen on
Why do you want them to GPL ZFS? In what way would that save you
annoyance?
I actually think Doug was trying to say he wished Oracle would open the
development and make the source code open-sourced, not necessarily
GPL'd.
Yes. I don't really care which specific license it is, as long as
Linder, Doug wrote:
Why do you want them to GPL ZFS? In what way would that save you
annoyance?
I actually think Doug was trying to say he wished Oracle would open the
development and make the source code open-sourced, not necessarily
GPL'd.
Yes. I don't really care which
feeding-trollsI'm very happy it's not in linux since linux is
usually a low quality pile of crap cobbled together. If you're not
writing the code to zfs or btrfs then you don't get a vote and just
making noise on a public mailing list/feeing-trolls
How about doing some work instead of just
Linder, Doug doug.lin...@merchantlink.com wrote:
Why do you want them to GPL ZFS? In what way would that save you
annoyance?
I actually think Doug was trying to say he wished Oracle would open the
development and make the source code open-sourced, not necessarily
GPL'd.
Yes. I
The reason for not being able to use ZFS under Linux is not the license used by
ZFS but the missing will for integration.
Several lawyers explained already why adding ZFS to the Linux would just create
a collective work that is permitted by the GPL.
lalala..
http://zfsonlinux.org/
Joerg Schilling wrote:
The reason for not being able to use ZFS under Linux is not the license
used by ZFS but the missing will for integration.
Several lawyers explained already why adding ZFS to the Linux would
just create a collective work that is permitted by the GPL.
Folks, I very
lalala..
http://zfsonlinux.org/
Very nice. So why isn't it in Fedora (for example)?
I'll believe it when I see it in a big Linux distribution, supported like any
other FS, and I can use it in production. Until then, it doesn't exist.
--
Learn more about Merchant Link at
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
lalala..
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies
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:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Linder, Doug
doug.lin...@merchantlink.comwrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
The reason for not being able to use ZFS under Linux is not the license
used by ZFS but the missing will for integration.
Several lawyers explained already why adding ZFS to the Linux
Tim Cook wrote:
Claiming you'd start paying for Solaris if they gave you ZFS for free in
Linux is absolutely ridiculous.
*Start* paying? You clearly have NO idea what it costs to run Solaris in a
production environment with support. For what we pay it seems like they should
send us a
Hi,
For any one interested in ZFS on linux, We have ported ZFS to linux, and
will be providing support for it at reasonable cost.
Check it out at zfs.kqinfotech.com.
So let me know if any one is interested in it.
Regards,
Anurag.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Linder, Doug
js == Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
delivered the following alternate reality of idealogical
partisan hackery:
js GPLv3 does not give you anything you don't have from CDDL
js also.
I think this is wrong. The patent indemnification is totally
different:
ld == Linder, Doug doug.lin...@merchantlink.com writes:
ld Very nice. So why isn't it in Fedora (for example)?
I think it's slow and unstable? To me it's not clear yet whether it
will be the first thing in the Linux world that's stable and has
zfs-like capability. If ZFS were GPL it
ld == Linder, Doug doug.lin...@merchantlink.com writes:
ld This list is for ZFS discussion. There are plenty of other
ld places for License Wars and IP discussion.
Did you miss the part where ZFS was forked by a license change? Did
you miss Solaris Express 11 coming out with no
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 14:31 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which, I
*think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express
snapshot was taken.
Do you really see such
We won't know until after Oracle releases Solaris 11 whether or not
they'll live up to their promise to open the source to ZFSv31. Until
Solaris 11 is released, there's really not much point in debating it.
And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not
being
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 15:05 -0500, Linder, Doug wrote:
We won't know until after Oracle releases Solaris 11 whether or not
they'll live up to their promise to open the source to ZFSv31.
Until Solaris 11 is released, there's really not much point in
debating it. And if they don't, it
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Linder, Doug wrote:
But it sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort
and annoyance and just GPL'd ZFS. I think the goodwill generated
Why do you want them to GPL ZFS? In what way would that save you
annoyance?
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
I, for one, would be astonished if they (Oracle) GPL'd the relevant
sections of code. It seems so out-of-character that I just can't wrap my
brain around it. wink
That said, I'd also be unhappy if they GPL'd it. I'd much rather just
have Oracle keep
On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Linder, Doug wrote:
But it sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort and
annoyance and just GPL'd ZFS. I think the goodwill generated
Why do you want them to GPL ZFS?
bf == Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us writes:
bf Perhaps it is better for Linux if it is GPLv2, but probably
bf not if it is GPLv3.
That's my understanding: GPLv3 is the one you would need to preserve
software freedom under deals like NetApp-Oracle patent pact,
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug
But it
sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort and annoyance and
just GPL'd ZFS.
If you just mean it should be open source, under CDDL that it's been
In fact, that's the reason why CDDL is not GPL compatible. Because
GPL is not compatible with other open-source licenses if the other
licenses grant too many permissions to the recipient.
Specifically:
GPL prohibits the recipient from static linking with a closed-source
product, or using
Le 13/12/2010 01:56, Tim Cook a écrit :
Yes, only the USA, which is where all relevant companies in this
discussion do business. On a mailing list centered around a company
founded in and doing business in the USA. So what exactly is your point?
Don't you forget that these companies also do
rs == Robert Soubie robert.sou...@free.fr writes:
rs Don't you forget that these companies also do much of their
rs business in foreign countries (Europe, Asia) where software
rs patenting is not allowed,
dated myth. software patents do exist in europe, and the EPO has
issued
On 12/13/10 05:55 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
+ Oracle publishes the promised yet-to-be-delivered zfs-crypto
paper that's thorough enough to write a compatible implementation
It isn't yet the full paper but a lot of the on disk details are in my
latest blog entry and all of the structs
On 11/12/2010 00:07, Erik Trimble wrote:
The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which,
I *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express
snapshot was taken.
I don't think this is the case.
Although all the files show modification date of 29 Oct
ransfer-encoding: 7BIT
On 11/12/2010 00:07, Erik Trimble wrote:
The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which,
I *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express
snapshot was taken.
I don't think this is the case.
Although all the files show
On 12/11/2010 3:59 AM, casper@sun.com wrote:
ransfer-encoding: 7BIT
On 11/12/2010 00:07, Erik Trimble wrote:
The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which,
I *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express
snapshot was taken.
I don't think this
2010/12/10 Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this.
What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS? Has oracle made it
On Dec 11, 2010, at 14:15, Frank Van Damme wrote:
2010/12/10 Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about
this.
What's the latest
et == Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com writes:
et In that case, can I be the first to say PANIC! RUN FOR THE
et HILLS!
Erik I thought most people already understood pushing to the public hg
gate had stopped at b147, hence Illumos and OpenIndiana. it's not
that you're wrong, just
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Van Damme
And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not
being available to a wide community to review and amend, as in terms
of Oracle not really getting the
Edward Ned Harvey opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune to
netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band together
and fund the open-source development of ZFS and openindiana...
We have ZFS version 28. Whether we ever get another open source update of ZFS
from *Oracle* is at this point doubtful. However, I will point out that there
are a lot of former Oracle engineers, including both inventors of ZFS and many
of the people who have worked on it over the years, who
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Edward Ned Harvey opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com
wrote:
Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune
to netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents are
invalid because of prior art.
You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It is
your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every time you repeated
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents
are
invalid because of prior art.
You are not a court of law, and that statement has
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 13:22:28 -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
: The only thing missing is ZFS. To me it looks like a good replacement
: for that is years away. I'm not excited about ocfs, or about kernel
: module ZFS ports taking advantage of the Linus kmod ``interpretation''
: and the grub GPLv3
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 00:17:08 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
: If you have substancial information on why NetApp may rightfully own a patent
: that is essential for ZFS, I would be interested to get this information.
Trivial: the US patent system is fundamentally broken, so owning patents
on
From: Joerg Schilling [mailto:joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]
Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune
to netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band
together and fund the open-source development of ZFS and openindiana...
It's a
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. What's
the latest version of publicly
released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-source moving forward?
Nice troll.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us,
On 12/10/10 09:54, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this.
What's the latest version of publicly
released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-source moving forward?
Nice troll.
Bob
Totally!
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this.
What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS? Has oracle made it
closed-source moving forward?
Nexenta ...
From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us]
It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this.
What's
the latest version of publicly
released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-source moving forward?
Nice troll.
Are you kidding? 6 months ago, and 1
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this.
What's the latest version of publicly
released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-source
On 12/10/2010 10:21 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything
71 matches
Mail list logo
