Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Chuck Munro chu...@seafoam.net 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
Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org 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
Ray Van Dolson ra...@bludgeon.org 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
Chuck Munro chu...@seafoam.net 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
On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Chuck Munro chu...@seafoam.net 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,
Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Chuck Munro chu...@seafoam.net 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
On 06/01/2015 07:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Chuck Munro chu...@seafoam.net wrote:
I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is
the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather
Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de 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
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 University has a
On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:02:53 -0500, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net 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
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 statement of
On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:06:20 -0500, Jonathan Billings
billi...@negate.org 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
Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de 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
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
decided.
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
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
Andrew Holway andrew.hol...@gmail.com 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
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
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net 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
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
Once upon a time, Chuck Munro chu...@seafoam.net 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
Chuck Munro wrote:
snip
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
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 btrfs
22 matches
Mail list logo
