On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:> Chuck Munro <chuckm at 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 there are OpenSource enemies that spread a > fairy tale about an alleged licensing issue. > > The only problem with integrating ZFS into Linux is that the VFS interface from > Linux is inferior to the one from OpenSolaris and as a result, there is a need > to first implement missing interfaces. > > J?rg >Guys ... let's try not to have a license fight again on the list. Sometimes these things get way out of hand. This list is not a place for legal advise .. let's let the attorneys who actually know the law and the maintainers of programs decide what license they use and what it means. Whatever is in RHEL sources, that is what will be in official CentOS Linux .. and if you want something else (ie, ZFS) .. then get like minded people and start a SIG to maintain that for CentOS on the CentOS-devel mailing list. Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20150601/1cc82049/attachment-0001.sig>
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:> On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Chuck Munro <chuckm at 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 there are OpenSource enemies that spread a > > fairy tale about an alleged licensing issue. > > > > The only problem with integrating ZFS into Linux is that the VFS interface from > > Linux is inferior to the one from OpenSolaris and as a result, there is a need > > to first implement missing interfaces. > > > > J?rg > > > > Guys ... let's try not to have a license fight again on the list. > Sometimes these things get way out of hand. > > This list is not a place for legal advise .. let's let the attorneys who > actually know the law and the maintainers of programs decide what > license they use and what it means.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 useless discussions, you need to prevent people from spreading unverified rumors. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
On 06/01/2015 07:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:> Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > >> On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> Chuck Munro <chuckm at 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 there are OpenSource enemies that spread a >>> fairy tale about an alleged licensing issue. >>> >>> The only problem with integrating ZFS into Linux is that the VFS interface from >>> Linux is inferior to the one from OpenSolaris and as a result, there is a need >>> to first implement missing interfaces. >>> >>> J?rg >>> >> >> Guys ... let's try not to have a license fight again on the list. >> Sometimes these things get way out of hand. >> >> This list is not a place for legal advise .. let's let the attorneys who >> actually know the law and the maintainers of programs decide what >> license they use and what it means. > > 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 useless discussions, you need to prevent people from spreading > unverified rumors. > > J?rg >I replied to the last one I saw in the thread at the time of my reply .. not to assign blame. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20150601/621bc4e2/attachment-0001.sig>