On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> All that matters for CentOS is:
>
> 1: Red Hat doesn't ship ZFS because of Red Hat's lawyers' interpretation
>of GPL+CDDL
> 2: Arguing about it here will not change #1
> 3: CentOS ships a clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and so won't ha
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:11:56AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> On Mon, June 1, 2015 11:06 am, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> > According to https://access.redhat.com/solutions/79633 :
>
> Hm... this best answer is meant for RedHat Enterprise subscribers' eyes
> only...
>
> Even though my Universit
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling
>> said:
>> > Note that it is without doubt that ZFS was not derived from the Linux
>> > kernel and thus cannot be a derived work.
>>
>> All that matters for CentOS is:
>>
>> 1: Red Hat doesn't ship ZFS because of
On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:06:20 -0500, Jonathan Billings
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 10:55:55AM -0500, Jason Warr wrote:
I think that you need to simplify #1 to:
1: Red Hat doesn't ship ZFS
As that is really all that matters and so that people can't argue that
you
are making a statement
On Mon, June 1, 2015 11:06 am, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 10:55:55AM -0500, Jason Warr wrote:
>> I think that you need to simplify #1 to:
>>
>> 1: Red Hat doesn't ship ZFS
>>
>> As that is really all that matters and so that people can't argue that
>> you
>> are making a st
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 10:55:55AM -0500, Jason Warr wrote:
> I think that you need to simplify #1 to:
>
> 1: Red Hat doesn't ship ZFS
>
> As that is really all that matters and so that people can't argue that you
> are making a statement of knowledge about what/why Red Hat's lawyers have
> decid
On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:02:53 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
All that matters for CentOS is:
1: Red Hat doesn't ship ZFS because of Red Hat's lawyers' interpretation
of GPL+CDDL
2: Arguing about it here will not change #1
3: CentOS ships a clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and so won't have
t
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling said:
> > Note that it is without doubt that ZFS was not derived from the Linux
> > kernel
> > and thus cannot be a derived work.
>
> All that matters for CentOS is:
>
> 1: Red Hat doesn't ship ZFS because of Red Hat's lawyers' interpretat
Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling said:
> Note that it is without doubt that ZFS was not derived from the Linux kernel
> and thus cannot be a derived work.
All that matters for CentOS is:
1: Red Hat doesn't ship ZFS because of Red Hat's lawyers' interpretation
of GPL+CDDL
2: Arguing about it
Andrew Holway wrote:
> >
> >
> > OK, plese note that I am not willing to tolerate anti-oss claims and will
> > continue to correct similar false claims. If you don't like those
> > discussions
> > at all, you should try to avoid false claims and the need for corrections.
> >
>
> If I were RedHat,
>
>
> OK, plese note that I am not willing to tolerate anti-oss claims and will
> continue to correct similar false claims. If you don't like those
> discussions
> at all, you should try to avoid false claims and the need for corrections.
>
If I were RedHat, including a non GPL filesystem into my
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > Could you explain why you did not reply to the mail fropm Chris Adams who
> > introduced a false claim about so called "opinions of a number of lawyers"?
> >
> > As mentioned: lawyers explain why there is no problem with ZFS integration.
> > If
> > you don't like usel
On 06/01/2015 07:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> Chuck Munro wrote:
>>>
I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is
the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Chuck Munro wrote:
> >
> >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is
> >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the
> >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it
On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Chuck Munro wrote:
>
>> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is
>> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the
>> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc?
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Chuck Munro said:
> > I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what
> > is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with
> > the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue,
> > political, etc?
>
> Lic
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> Licensing, IMO. Redistributing ZoL is likely fraught with a bit of
> legal peril, or at best, technical peril if you want to try and skirt
> the legal edges. Oracle is notoriously litigious and having a target
> liked Red Hat would probably have their lawyers whetting th
Chuck Munro wrote:
> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is
> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the
> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc?
There is no licensing issue, but there are OpenSource
Chuck Munro wrote:
> As an aside, I have used only WD Black and WD RedPro drives for RAID,
> and not had any issues. Green drives are scary :-)
It's the TLER that kills you. We tried some early 3TB greens in some of
our Penguins (OEM, rebranded Supermicro), and within a month, they'd start
givin
Once upon a time, Chuck Munro said:
> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what
> is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with
> the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue,
> political, etc?
Licensing. Sun chose an Open Source
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 07:51:58AM -0700, Chuck Munro wrote:
> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what
> is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with
> the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue,
> political, etc?
>
> Although
I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is
the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the
ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc?
Although btrfs is making progress, ZFS is far more mature, has a few
more stab
22 matches
Mail list logo
