CentOS - Jun 2015 - Native ZFS on Linux

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>

Johnny Hughes <johnny at 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 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.
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.

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/'

>
>
> 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 operating system
would make me sweat a bit. Intel were facing a similar issue bundling
OpenZFS with Lustre in their Intel Enterprise Edition for Lustre. They seem
to have solved it by having the installer download the OpenZFS package
during installation time.