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
