Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/25/2010 12:16 PM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Erik Trimble wrote: I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of Netapp filed patents (without code) in 1993, I of course have working code for S

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote: > Erik Trimble wrote: > > > I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in > > question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of > > Netapp filed patents (without code) in 1993, I of course have working c

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Erik Trimble wrote: > I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in > question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of Netapp filed patents (without code) in 1993, I of course have working code for SuinOS-4.9 from 1991. Se below for more information. > pseudo-

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/25/2010 11:19 AM, Tim Cook wrote: On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Erik Trimble > wrote: On 12/25/2010 6:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/25/2010 10:59 AM, Tim Cook wrote: On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey > wrote: > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 12/25/2010 6:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling >>> >>> And people should note that Netapp filed their patents starti

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/25/2010 6:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling And people should note that Netapp filed their patents starting from 1993. This is 5 years after I started to develop WOFS, which i

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling > > > > And people should note that Netapp filed their patent

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling > > And people should note that Netapp filed their patents starting from 1993. > This > is 5 years after I started to develop WOFS, which is copy on write. This still > > In an

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Martin Matuska > > Hi guys, I am one of the ZFS porting folks at FreeBSD. That's all really cool, and IMHO, more promising than anything I knew before. But I'll really believe it if (a) some

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Martin Matuska wrote: > Tim Cook cook.ms> writes: > > > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested.  It is > your opinion and nothing more.  I'd appreciate if every time you repeated that > statement, you'd preface it with "in my opinion" so you don't have people > runnin

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Tim Cook cook.ms> writes: > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested.  It is your opinion and nothing more.  I'd appreciate if every time you repeated that statement, you'd preface it with "in my opinion" so you don't have people running around believing what they're doi

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> "js" == Joerg Schilling writes: >> GPLv3 might help with NetApp <-> Oracle pact while CDDL does >> not. js> GPLv3 does not help at all with NetApp as the CDDL already js> includes a patent grant with the maximum possible js> coverage. AIUI CDDL makes a user safe from

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack > > >> "Claiming you'd start paying for Solaris if they gave you ZFS for free > >> in Linux is absolutely ridiculous." > > > > *Start* paying? You clearly have NO idea what it cos

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Frank Cusack wrote: > On 12/16/10 11:32 AM +0100 Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Note that while there existist > > numerous papers from lawyers that consistently explain which parts of > > the GPLv2 are violating US law and thus are void, > > Can you elaborate? See: http://www.osscc.net/en/gpl.ht

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/16/10 11:32 AM +0100 Joerg Schilling wrote: Note that while there existist numerous papers from lawyers that consistently explain which parts of the GPLv2 are violating US law and thus are void, Can you elaborate? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/16/10 9:11 AM -0500 Linder, Doug wrote: The only thing I'll add is that I, as I said, I really don't care at all about licenses. Then you have no room to complain or even suggest a specific license! When it comes to licenses, to me (and, I suspect, the vast majority of other OSS users)

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/16/10 10:24 AM -0500 Linder, Doug wrote: Tim Cook wrote: "Claiming you'd start paying for Solaris if they gave you ZFS for free in Linux is absolutely ridiculous." *Start* paying? You clearly have NO idea what it costs to run Solaris in a production environment with support. In my ex

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Miles Nordin wrote: > > "js" == Joerg Schilling > delivered the following alternate reality of idealogical > partisan hackery: > > js> GPLv3 does not give you anything you don't have from CDDL > js> also. > > I think this is wrong. The patent indemnification is totally >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 14:31 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Erik Trimble wrote: > > > The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which, I > > *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express > > snapshot was taken. > > Do you really see such an update? >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> "ld" == Linder, Doug writes: ld> This list is for ZFS discussion. There are plenty of other ld> places for License Wars and IP discussion. Did you miss the part where ZFS was forked by a license change? Did you miss Solaris Express 11 coming out with no source? Do you not unders

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> "ld" == Linder, Doug writes: ld> Very nice. So why isn't it in Fedora (for example)? I think it's slow and unstable? To me it's not clear yet whether it will be the first thing in the Linux world that's stable and has zfs-like capability. If ZFS were GPL it probably would have been,

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> "js" == Joerg Schilling delivered the following alternate reality of idealogical partisan hackery: js> GPLv3 does not give you anything you don't have from CDDL js> also. I think this is wrong. The patent indemnification is totally different: AIUI the CDDL makes the im

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Hi, For any one interested in ZFS on linux, We have ported ZFS to linux, and will be providing support for it at reasonable cost. Check it out at zfs.kqinfotech.com. So let me know if any one is interested in it. Regards, Anurag. On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Linder, Doug wrote: > Tim Coo

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Tim Cook wrote: >"Claiming you'd start paying for Solaris if they gave you ZFS for free in >Linux is absolutely ridiculous." *Start* paying? You clearly have NO idea what it costs to run Solaris in a production environment with support. For what we pay it seems like they should send us a Sol

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Linder, Doug wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > The reason for not being able to use ZFS under Linux is not the license > > used by ZFS but the missing will for integration. > > > > Several lawyers explained already why adding ZFS to the Linux would > > just cre

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

"C. Bergström" wrote: > lalala.. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> lalala.. > > http://zfsonlinux.org/ Very nice. So why isn't it in Fedora (for example)? I'll believe it when I see it in a big Linux distribution, supported like any other FS, and I can use it in production. Until then, it doesn't exist. -- Learn more about Merchant Link at www.merc

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Joerg Schilling wrote: > The reason for not being able to use ZFS under Linux is not the license > used by ZFS but the missing will for integration. > > Several lawyers explained already why adding ZFS to the Linux would > just create a "collective work" that is permitted by the GPL. Folks, I ve

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

The reason for not being able to use ZFS under Linux is not the license used by ZFS but the missing will for integration. Several lawyers explained already why adding ZFS to the Linux would just create a "collective work" that is permitted by the GPL. lalala.. http://zfsonlinux.org/

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

"Linder, Doug" wrote: > > > Why do you want them to "GPL" ZFS? In what way would that save you > > annoyance? > > > > I actually think Doug was trying to say he wished Oracle would open the > > development and make the source code open-sourced, not necessarily > > GPL'd. > > Yes. I don't reall

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> I'm very happy it's not in linux since "linux" is > usually a low quality pile of crap cobbled together. If you're not > writing the code to zfs or btrfs then you don't get a vote and just > making noise on a public mailing list > > How about doing some work instead of just complaining about th

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Linder, Doug wrote: Why do you want them to "GPL" ZFS? In what way would that save you annoyance? I actually think Doug was trying to say he wished Oracle would open the development and make the source code open-sourced, not necessarily GPL'd. Yes. I don't really care which spec

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> > Why do you want them to "GPL" ZFS? In what way would that save you > annoyance? > > I actually think Doug was trying to say he wished Oracle would open the > development and make the source code open-sourced, not necessarily > GPL'd. Yes. I don't really care which specific license it is, as

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Erik Trimble wrote: > The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which, I > *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express > snapshot was taken. Do you really see such an update? The last time I tried, the source was frozen on August 18th 2010. Jörg

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com] > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:47 AM > > We have ZFS version 28.  Whether we ever get another open source update > of ZFS from *Oracle* is at this point doubtful.  However, I will point out that Forgive me for swinging the conversation ba

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > These reasons don't make CDDL incompatible with GPL. GPL is > compatible with any license which is at least as permissive as itself. > GPLv2 only requires that the recipient be able to receive all of the > source code under terms which allow building new binaries (inc

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Miles Nordin wrote: > > "bf" == Bob Friesenhahn writes: > > bf> Perhaps it is better for Linux if it is GPLv2, but probably > bf> not if it is GPLv3. > > That's my understanding: GPLv3 is the one you would need to preserve > software freedom under deals like NetApp<->Oracle patent pa

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Miles Nordin wrote: > * when do the CDDL patent protections apply? to deals between Oracle >and Netapp? or is it only protection against Oracle patents? I >think the latter, but then, which Oracle patents? Suppose: The CDDL gives patent grants to all patents that relate to code code

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

In fact, that's the reason why CDDL is not GPL compatible. Because GPL is not compatible with other open-source licenses if the other licenses grant too many permissions to the recipient. Specifically: GPL prohibits the recipient from static linking with a closed-source product, or using c

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug > > But it > sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort and annoyance and > just GPL'd ZFS. If you just mean it should be open source, under CDDL that it's been

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> "bf" == Bob Friesenhahn writes: bf> Perhaps it is better for Linux if it is GPLv2, but probably bf> not if it is GPLv3. That's my understanding: GPLv3 is the one you would need to preserve software freedom under deals like NetApp<->Oracle patent pact, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Linder, Doug wrote: > >> But it sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort and >> annoyance and just GPL'd ZFS. I think the goodwill generated > > Why do you want them to "GPL" ZFS? In what way would

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Erik Trimble wrote: I, for one, would be astonished if they (Oracle) GPL'd the relevant sections of code. It seems so out-of-character that I just can't wrap my brain around it. That said, I'd also be unhappy if they GPL'd it. I'd much rather just have Oracle keep contrib

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Linder, Doug wrote: But it sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort and annoyance and just GPL'd ZFS. I think the goodwill generated Why do you want them to "GPL" ZFS? In what way would that save you annoyance? Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 15:05 -0500, Linder, Doug wrote: > > > We won't know until after Oracle releases Solaris 11 whether or not > > > they'll live up to their promise to open the source to ZFSv31. > Until > > Solaris 11 is released, there's really not much point in > debating it. > > And if the

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> > We won't know until after Oracle releases Solaris 11 whether or not > > they'll live up to their promise to open the source to ZFSv31.  Until > > Solaris 11 is released, there's really not much point in debating it. > > And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not > bein

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/13/10 05:55 PM, Miles Nordin wrote: + Oracle publishes the promised yet-to-be-delivered zfs-crypto paper that's thorough enough to write a compatible implementation It isn't yet the full paper but a lot of the on disk details are in my latest blog entry and all of the structs n

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> "rs" == Robert Soubie writes: rs> Don't you forget that these companies also do much of their rs> business in foreign countries (Europe, Asia) where software rs> patenting is not allowed, dated myth. software patents do exist in europe, and the EPO has issued them. Fewer are

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Le 13/12/2010 01:56, Tim Cook a écrit : Yes, only the USA, which is where all relevant companies in this discussion do business. On a mailing list centered around a company founded in and doing business in the USA. So what exactly is your point? Don't you forget that these companies also do mu

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Tim Cook wrote: > > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It is >> your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every time you repeated >> that statem

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Tim Cook wrote: You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested.  It is your opinion and nothing more.  I'd appreciate if every time you repeated that statement, you'd preface it with "in my opinion" so you don't have people running around believing what

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> From: Joerg Schilling [mailto:joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de] > > > Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune > to netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band > together and fund the open-source development of ZFS and openindiana... > I

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 00:17:08 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: : If you have substancial information on why NetApp may rightfully own a patent : that is essential for ZFS, I would be interested to get this information. Trivial: the US patent system is fundamentally broken, so owning patents on m

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 13:22:28 -0500, Miles Nordin wrote: : The only thing missing is ZFS. To me it looks like a good replacement : for that is years away. I'm not excited about ocfs, or about kernel : module ZFS ports taking advantage of the Linus kmod ``interpretation'' : and the grub GPLv3

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Tim Cook wrote: > > > > I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents > are > > > invalid because of prior art. > > > > > > > > You are not a court of law, and that statement

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Tim Cook wrote: > > I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents are > > invalid because of prior art. > > > > > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It is > your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every time you repeated > that

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Edward Ned Harvey > wrote: > > > Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune > to netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band > together and fund t

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

scuss-boun...@opensolaris.org on behalf of Edward Ned Harvey Sent: Fri 12/10/2010 5:31 AM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward? It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. What's the latest version of public

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune to > netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band together > and fund the open-source development of ZFS and openindiana... It's a real > risk. I don't believe that ther

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Van Damme > > And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not > being available to a wide community to review and amend, as in terms > of Oracle not really getting the

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> "et" == Erik Trimble writes: et> In that case, can I be the first to say "PANIC! RUN FOR THE et> HILLS!" Erik I thought most people already understood pushing to the public hg gate had stopped at b147, hence Illumos and OpenIndiana. it's not that you're wrong, just that you shoul

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Dec 11, 2010, at 14:15, Frank Van Damme wrote: 2010/12/10 Freddie Cash : On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-sourc

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

2010/12/10 Freddie Cash : > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey > wrote: >> It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. >> What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS?  Has oracle made it >> closed-source moving forward? >> >> Nexenta ... openindiana

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/11/2010 3:59 AM, casper@sun.com wrote: ransfer-encoding: 7BIT On 11/12/2010 00:07, Erik Trimble wrote: The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which, I *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express snapshot was taken. I don't think this i

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

ransfer-encoding: 7BIT > >On 11/12/2010 00:07, Erik Trimble wrote: >> >> The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which, >> I *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express >> snapshot was taken. >> > >I don't think this is the case. >Although all the fi

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 11/12/2010 00:07, Erik Trimble wrote: The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which, I *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express snapshot was taken. I don't think this is the case. Although all the files show modification date of 29 Oct 2

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/10/2010 10:21 AM, Tim Cook wrote: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Bob Friesenhahn mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us>> wrote: On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. What's the latest

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > >> It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. >> What's the latest version of publicly >> released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us] > > > It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this.  What's > the latest version of publicly > > released ZFS?  Has oracle made it closed-source moving forward? > > Nice troll. Are you kidding? 6 months ago, a

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. > What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS?  Has oracle made it > closed-source moving forward? > > Nexenta ... openindiana ... etc ... Are they all screwed?

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/10/10 09:54, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-source moving forward? Nice troll. Bob Totally! But

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this.  What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS?  Has oracle made it closed-source moving forward? Nice troll. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://

[zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-source moving forward? Nexenta ... openindiana ... etc ... Are they all screwed? ___ zfs-discuss mail