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: [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: [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
