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 re
[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 d
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
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 <[E
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 di
>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
[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 b
>Bob Bownes wrote:
>
>> I like the 'take a look at what Vertias' did suggestion. has anyone done
>> so?
>
>Does anyone *know* what Veritas did? I tried Google. It seems VxFS for
>Linux is not GPL.
And why would it need to be? As long as you don't distribute it as
part of the Linux kernel or w
Bob Bownes wrote:
I like the 'take a look at what Vertias' did suggestion. has anyone done
so?
Does anyone *know* what Veritas did? I tried Google. It seems VxFS for
Linux is not GPL.
I saw posts on the linux-kernel list expressing concerns about potential
GPL violations when accepting pat
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
04/17/2007 10:56 PM
To
Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject
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]>
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 r
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 Licens
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 yo
On 18-Apr-07, at 4:26 AM, Erblichs wrote:
Toby Thain,
I am sure someone will divise a method of subdividing
the FS and run a background fsck and/or checksums on the
different file objects or ... before this becomes a issue. :)
In the meantime I'll just use filesystem
Erblichs wrote:
Whose job is it to "clean" or declare for removal kernel
sources that "do not work"?
not the people on *this* list, IMO.
Michael
--
Michael Schuster
Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion'
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-disc
Toby Thain,
I am sure someone will divise a method of subdividing
the FS and run a background fsck and/or checksums on the
different file objects or ... before this becomes a issue. :)
Mitchell Erblich
-
Toby Thain wrote:
>
> >
Group,
Did Joerg Schilling bring up a bigger issue within this
discussion thread?
> 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
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.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 01:22:28AM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
> 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 mod
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 "l
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 dominat
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 ZF
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" shou
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 u
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.
--
Ra
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 a
"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 w
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
populatio
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
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 tha
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 d
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 kern
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 Microso
"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 wh
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?
"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
> thre
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 ...
__
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
BTW, flash drives have a filesystem too; AFAIK, it's usually pretty much
just FAT32, which is garbage, but widely supported, so that you
can plug them in just about anywhere. In most cases, one can put
some other filesystem on them, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility
that that might not work
You've ruled out most of what there is to talk about on the subject, I think.
If the licenses are incompatible (regardless of which if either is better),
then a Linux distro probably couldn't just include ZFS.
Now maybe (assuming ZFS were ported, which I doubt anybody would bother
with until a rea
40 matches
Mail list logo
