On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 21:07, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chavdar Ivanov <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:19, Martin Husemann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 06:17:50PM +0200, Hauke Fath wrote: > >> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:46:46 +0200, Marc Baudoin wrote: > >> > > ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. > >> > > >> > On the same topic, is there a perspective for > >> > > >> > file-system ZFS # Solaris ZFS > >> > > >> > (i.e. a monolithic, non-module kernel)? > >> > >> I think this is not possible due to licensing issues. > > > > IANAL, but as far as I understand it, nothing in the CDDL licence > > precludes the static inclusion of ZFS into the NetBSD kernel. > > > > If someone develops a product on the basis of the NetBSD kernel AND > > this product includes modifications of the CDDL-licensed parts of the > > kernel THEN he will be obliged to publish the source code of only the > > files under CDDL (a file-based license) which have been modified. So > > it introduces an element of obligation above and beyond one expects to > > have when using a BSD-licensed software, but does not taint the rest > > of the system in any way. > > > > I personally don't see a problem in having GENERIC+ZFS kernel > > configuration, if this were technically feasible. But, e.g., if a > > commercial entity decides to produce a SAN appliance based on NetBSD > > and using ZFS, and if any CDDL-licensed files have been modified, > > their source code will have to be produced. > > Perhaps true, but if the module scheme works for normal cases, little is > gained for NetBDS to distribute a kernel like that, and it adds > complexity thinking about licenses.
Of course. I was thinking that if ZFS were in the kernel, it might be easier to get ZFS root. -- ----
