zfs discuss - Apr 2007 - ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

Hello. I''m a nobody.

I use Linux. I have a hard-drive. I want the best / sexiest / what ever
fs for my hard-drive, as it isn''t one of those flashy flash drives,
which I presume don''t need an fs (???).

I was THRILLED that the ZFS for Linux thread started. And, I was equally
horrified (and sufficiently annoyed that I am starting this new thread) when
it degraded in to uninformed blather about this liscence or that.

To be honest, I don''t give a damn.

We doesn''t this list and it''s esteemed members actually talk
about the
issues concerning a port from Sun to Linux. I don''t want to hear about
the
FUSE thing; it''s slow, radically incomplete and generally stupid. I
also
don''t want this thread to degenerate in to liscence bashing. In fact,
try to
avoid talking about this altogether.

Aside from those constraints, run with it. Speak, ye devs! Tell all what
must be done to get ZFS on Linux and I will try to see it done.

Cheers.

-- 
?A watched bread-crumb never boils.
?My hover-craft is full of eels.
?[...]and that''s the he and the she of it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070413/2b08c3da/attachment.html>

You''ve ruled out most of what there is to talk about on the subject, I
think.
If the licenses are incompatible (regardless of which if either is better),
then a Linux distro probably couldn''t just include ZFS.

Now maybe (assuming ZFS were ported, which I doubt anybody would bother
with until a reasonable solution to the license issue existed) it would be
possible to have a Linux based distro with source for a ported ZFS, that
could with one script be compiled and installed (with the kernel part as a
loadable module).  I don''t know if that would be feasible, or
compliant, or
how the ideologues (of whichever side) would deal with that.  And it would
probably rule out using ZFS for the root filesystem, at the very least.

In the short run, you might as well just choose one or the other; either
stick with Linux and do without ZFS, or go with the most Linux-like
OpenSolaris distro (I''m guessing Nexenta) and accept that it
won''t be
100% Linux compatible (and might be awhile if ever before it has
a fully comparable range of driver support, esp. for older hardware).

Like I suggested before, I think you have a chicken-or-egg problem (like
alternative fuel distribution vs getting the vehicles out there - both
are needed for it to work, both are an investment, and nobody will
make one investment without assurance that the other will also be
in place).  But it''s more than that.  Not only is there the initial
work
that would be involved in porting ZFS, but AFAIK Linux explicitly avoids
committing to something like a DDI/DKI (being totally source-based and
not wanting the burden of backwards compatibility within the kernel,
which I understand, but it does have implications), which means they make
structural changes covering the entire scope of kernel code potentially
at any time, and any kernel code that''s not in the main Linux source
tree
won''t have those changes applied, and thus its independent maintainers
would have to struggle just to keep up.  Add to that that they''d also
have
to struggle to keep up with the changes and improvements originating
on the OpenSolaris side, and it''s going to fall apart fast.  If the
licenses
were compatible* and the ported ZFS code could be in the main Linux
source tree, then at least the problem of keeping it up to date would
only involve bringing updates into the port, not also separately keeping
the port in sync with the rest of the Linux kernel.

You can''t ignore the license, because nobody on either side is willing
to, and because breaking the law isn''t a good idea.  And the license
is a real part of the problem of getting what you want working, and
keeping it working.

As for the strictly technical, I don''t know much about the Solaris
vfs/vnode
interface (which is not public or stable unfortunately, although I kind of
understand why - it''s one of the few places other than simply adding
system calls where new magic can be introduced), and nothing about
whatever the equivalent Linux filesystem interface is.  But I think one
of the filesystems on Linux was ported from IRIX, which I think was also
SVR4 based, so it may have a somewhat similar (but separately evolved)
filesystem interface.  In other words, whatever was done to port XFS
to Linux might at least serve as a general hint as to what might be
needed to port ZFS to Linux, although not much more, since IRIX and Solaris
are different, and Linux and presumably changed some since the XFS port
was done.  In any case, I''m reasonably sure there are people out there
who
would more or less know what needed to be done, and indeed might have
already taken a quick look at it; but unless it was practical (and I''ve
explained
why I think it isn''t with the license issue), I can''t imagine
why they''d spend
at least a few hundred hours actually doing it.

Another interim option BTW might be to build an OpenSolaris based NAS
appliance (using ZFS), and have your Linux system(s) NFS mount from it.
Useless on a portable laptop of course, and there are some performance
issues with it, as well as some history of NFS interoperability problems
with Linux.  But it might be useful in some situations.

* I kept this out of the main flow of what I was writing, because I''m
going
to get a little more ideological than you''ll like.

You won''t get any sympathy from me on license issues unless
they''re a
two-way street.  For example, BSD code can be incorporated into GPL
code, but not the other way around.  So goodies can flow from the BSDs into
Linux relatively freely, but not so easily the other way.  The Linux code can
of course be used as the basis for a total rewrite for one of the BSDs, but
that''s at least twice the work of a port (two teams, one to create a 
specification from the code, another to create the new code from the
specification; and the only thing they talk to each other about is the
specification).  I have nothing against Linux, but neither am I a fan,
and I''m certainly not a fan of it taking more (or more freely) than it
gives back.
OTOH, I wouldn''t over-estimate the importance of the license issue
either
in one sense: even porting rather than clean-room rewriting of kernel
code from OpenSolaris to Linux (or vice versa) would be difficult regardless.
That''s a bit less true with the BSDs and OpenSolaris, which share
ancestry and
thus are a little more similar, although it''s not instant gratification
there
either; the ZFS port to FreeBSD took awhile, and still lacks ACL and
extended attribute functionality (perhaps because FreeBSD doesn''t have
either the concepts or a sufficiently similar framework for them?  I
don''t
know...).  But Linux, while it supposedly borrowed some ideas from old
SunOS header files, made a point of being  an independent development, and
indeed purposely did some things differently (for one, changed the names
of a lot of data structures that otherwise served quite similar purposes),
and has had its development further affected by the learning curve of
its developers, by their philosophy (i.e. the lack of a commited driver
interface and their reasons for that), and by other elements of the history
of different choices they made.  So even if OpenSolaris were magically
100% license compatible, it might be a year before you saw ZFS ported,
although some much smaller and simpler stuff (like those drivers which
weren''t too entangled with the architectural differences) might happen
much more quickly.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

BTW, flash drives have a filesystem too; AFAIK, it''s usually pretty
much
just FAT32, which is garbage,  but widely supported, so that you
can plug them in just about anywhere.  In most cases, one can put
some other filesystem on them, but I wouldn''t rule out the possibility
that that might not work well (or at all) with some of them.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

Well, I tried.

It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing
issues. I know I said I''d not bring up licensing, mainly because I did
not
want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this
thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to my recent
conclusions, I must.

I brought up the notion of a Linux port on the Linux-kernel mailing list.
Whilst the response is very high in number of posts, there has been a
general understanding that the non-compatibility of the CDDL and GPL
licenses is the show-stopper. Also agreed is that Linux can not change from
GPL.

So, it comes to this: Why,
precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL
compatible? The reader may feel free to respond to me
personally and in confidence, knowing that I shall mot divulge the contents
our correspondence.

If the general consensus is that I need to consult a lawyer, I will say
outright that I have no intentions of doing so if I must pay, but gladly
will if this service can be provided for free.

Cheers.

-- 
?A watched bread-crumb never boils.
?My hover-craft is full of eels.
?[...]and that''s the he and the she of it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070417/190bb894/attachment.html>

"David R. Litwin" <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I tried.
>
> It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing
> issues. I know I said I''d not bring up licensing, mainly because I
did not
> want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this
> thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to my recent
> conclusions, I must.
You know that this is not the way things work on Linux?

Is I noted before, the bigger problem would be the different VFS interface in 
Linux. Linux people in general do not plan things but just discuss things that 
are already "ready to use".
> I brought up the notion of a Linux port on the Linux-kernel mailing list.
> Whilst the response is very high in number of posts, there has been a
> general understanding that the non-compatibility of the CDDL and GPL
> licenses is the show-stopper. Also agreed is that Linux can not change from
> GPL.
>
> So, it comes to this: Why,
> precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL
> compatible? The reader may feel free to respond to me
> personally and in confidence, knowing that I shall mot divulge the contents
> our correspondence.
The problem with such discussions is not that the code combination would be 
impossible but that the people from Linux discuss on a wrong base that makes 
the combination impossible.

ZFS is not part of the Linux Kernel. Only if you declare ZFS a "part of 
Linux", you will observe the license conflict.

The GPL is talking about "works" and there is no problem to use GPL
code
together with code under other licenses as long as this is mere aggregation
(like creating a driver for Linux) instead of creating a "derived
work".

It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not
liking ZFS.

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
> released under a License which _is_ GPL
> compatible?
So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license?


-- 
Just me,
Wire ...

"David R. Litwin" <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <weeyeh at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
> > > released under a License which _is_ GPL
> > > compatible?
> >
> > So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible
license?
>
>
> So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make
ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver.

Using ZFS with Linux would be "mere aggregation" (see GPL text).

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <weeyeh at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
> > released under a License which _is_ GPL
> > compatible?
>
> So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license?

So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.

On the flip side, why shouldn''t it be?

-- 
?A watched bread-crumb never boils.
?My hover-craft is full of eels.
?[...]and that''s the he and the she of it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070417/25186837/attachment.html>

On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
>
> On the flip side, why shouldn''t it be?
Do you want to spam *EVERY* open source project asking to change the
license to GPL so that you can use it with Linux??

How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??

Rayson




>
> --
> ?A watched bread-crumb never boils.
> ?My hover-craft is full of eels.
> ?[...]and that''s the he and the she of it.
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
>

As Joerg noted (and I''ve looked at fairly extensively), the VFS layer
in
Linux is radically different than either FreeBSD or Solaris, and ZFS 
would require extensive reworking before being implemented - the port is 
nowhere near as simple as the one from Solaris to FreeBSD.

Also, note that kernel modules are considered part of the kernel and 
covered by the derivative portion of the GPL, at least in the eyes of 
most Linux folks.  ATI and nVidia get around this issue by producing a 
GPL''d kernel module which provides stable ABI/API across many different
linux releases, then have their relevant drivers call this.  
Theoretically, this might be possible with ZFS, but given that ZFS may 
need deep interfacing with the VFS layers, I can''t see how a clean 
separation between a GPL''d ZFS kernel module (which you''d have
to write
from scratch) and a CDDL''d driver can be made.

It simply isn''t going to happen, any more than you''re going to
be able
to take the GPL''d reiserFS Linux driver and port it directly into 
FreeBSD or Solaris.

And, frankly, I can think of several very good reasons why Sun would NOT 
want to release a ZFS under the GPL - specifically, Linux is a direct 
competitor to Solaris, and it does not benefit Sun (or, ultimately, 
everyone) for all of Solaris'' features to be directly incorporated into
Linux.  Application-level compatibility between Linux and Solaris is 
desirable for everyone, but there are still significant advantages to 
OS-level feature differentiation.


I do not speak for Sun on this matter, nor would I presume that my 
opinion is held by others here; it''s just my opinion.

-- 
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop:  usca22-123
Phone:  x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)

On 17/04/07, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de>
wrote:
>
> "David R. Litwin" <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I tried.
> >
> > It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to
licensing
> > issues. I know I said I''d not bring up licensing, mainly
because I did
> not
> > want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted
> this
> > thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to my recent
> > conclusions, I must.
>
> You know that this is not the way things work on Linux?

If you refer to the licensing, yes. Coding-wise, I have no idea exept
to say that I would be VERY surprised if ZFS can not be ported to
Linux, especially since there already
exists the FUSE project.

Is I noted before, the bigger problem would be the different VFS
interface
> in
> Linux. Linux people in general do not plan things but just discuss things
> that
> are already "ready to use".

Excellent! There is talk of the (some-what) technical issues related
to a port. Carry on!
> I brought up the notion of a Linux port on the Linux-kernel mailing list.
> > Whilst the response is very high in number of posts, there has been a
> > general understanding that the non-compatibility of the CDDL and GPL
> > licenses is the show-stopper. Also agreed is that Linux can not change
> from
> > GPL.
> >
> > So, it comes to this: Why,
> > precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL
> > compatible? The reader may feel free to respond to me
> > personally and in confidence, knowing that I shall mot divulge the
> contents
> > our correspondence.
>
> The problem with such discussions is not that the code combination would
> be
> impossible but that the people from Linux discuss on a wrong base that
> makes
> the combination impossible.
>
> ZFS is not part of the Linux Kernel. Only if you declare ZFS a "part
of
> Linux", you will observe the license conflict.

And, as brought up elsewhere, ZFS would have to be a part of the
Kernel -- or else some persons would have to employ Herculean
attention to make sure ZFS was upgraded with the kernel. if some one
were
willing to do this, a swift resolution MAY ba possible.

The GPL is talking about "works" and there is no problem to use GPL
code
> together with code under other licenses as long as this is mere
> aggregation
> (like creating a driver for Linux) instead of creating a "derived
work".
>
> It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not
> liking ZFS.

Indeed? What are these reasons? I want to have every thing in the open.

-- 
?A watched bread-crumb never boils.
?My hover-craft is full of eels.
?[...]and that''s the he and the she of it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070417/c94b7f60/attachment.html>

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "David R. Litwin" <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <weeyeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
>>>> released under a License which _is_ GPL
>>>> compatible?
>>>>         
>>> So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible
license?
>>>       
>> So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
>>     
>
> This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make
> ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver.
>
> Using ZFS with Linux would be "mere aggregation" (see GPL text).
>
> J?rg
>
>   
No, the general consensus amongst Linux folks is that kernel modules 
calling any kernel code are considered "part" of the Linux kernel;
this
is still up for legal debate, of course, but this kind of very dark grey 
area is something that Sun''s lawyers hate. Which means that having a 
CDDL''d kernel driver is going to turn them sickly green, because of the
_very_ unknown legality of it.

This issue is exactly why ATI/nVidia have their own GPL''d kernel 
modules, but a proprietary driver.  As I mentioned before, ZFS almost 
certainly needs Linux VFS hooks, which are _definitely_ going to be 
considered GPL''d code, and thus, ZFS would be required to be
GPL-compatible.

About the best I can suggest is that you look at the ZFS code and see 
where it requires VFS access, and then write a kernel module which 
exports a specific API to the kernel VFS layer, and port the ZFS code to 
use that new API.  Go look at the aforementioned nVidia drivers for an 
example of how they do it.  Or, maybe even look at the OSS (Open Sound 
System) code for how to provide this kind of meta-API.

-- 
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop:  usca22-123
Phone:  x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)

On 17/04/07, Rayson Ho <rayrayson at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
> >
> > On the flip side, why shouldn''t it be?
>
> Do you want to spam *EVERY* open source project asking to change the
> license to GPL so that you can use it with Linux??

Not at all! I''m very serious and even more curious. Nor am I asking you
to
change licenses. I, as always, wish only to satisfy my curiosity.

How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??


Let''s leave ms out of this, eh? :-)

-- 
?A watched bread-crumb never boils.
?My hover-craft is full of eels.
?[...]and that''s the he and the she of it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070417/c2438d1c/attachment.html>

On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??
>
> Let''s leave ms out of this, eh? :-)
While ZFS is nice, I don''t think it is a must for most desktop users.

For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world
population) people who just use the computers to browse the web, check
emails, do word processing, etc... don''t care. Even if they do care, I
don''t think those who do not backup their drive can really understand
how to use ZFS.

And, freeing the office file format is way more important than to port
ZFS to Linux.

I believe Sun has other important things to work on than to relicense
Solaris to GPL.

Rayson


> --
>
> ?A watched bread-crumb never boils.
> ?My hover-craft is full of eels.
> ?[...]and that''s the he and the she of it.
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
>

"David R. Litwin" <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you refer to the licensing, yes. Coding-wise, I have no idea exept
> to say that I would be VERY surprised if ZFS can not be ported to
> Linux, especially since there already
> exists the FUSE project.
So if you are interested in this project, I would encourage you to just start 
with the code...

> > ZFS is not part of the Linux Kernel. Only if you declare ZFS a
"part of
> > Linux", you will observe the license conflict.
>
>
> And, as brought up elsewhere, ZFS would have to be a part of the
> Kernel -- or else some persons would have to employ Herculean
> attention to make sure ZFS was upgraded with the kernel. if some one
> were
> willing to do this, a swift resolution MAY ba possible.
The fact that someone may put the ZFS sources in the Linux source tree
does not make it a part of that software....

And it seems that you missunderstand the way the Linux kernel is developed.
If _you_ started a ZFS project for Linux, _you_ would need to maintain it too
or otherwise it would not be kept up to date. Note that it is a well known 
fact that a lot of the non-mainstream parts of the linux kernel sources
do not work although they _are_ part of the linux kernel source tree.

Creating a port does not mean that you may forget about it once you believe that
you are ready.

> The GPL is talking about "works" and there is no problem to use
GPL code
> > together with code under other licenses as long as this is mere
> > aggregation
> > (like creating a driver for Linux) instead of creating a "derived
work".
> >
> > It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for
not
> > liking ZFS.
>
>
> Indeed? What are these reasons? I want to have every thing in the open.
This is something you would need to ask the Linux kernel folks....

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Erik Trimble <Erik.Trimble at Sun.COM> wrote:
> > This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make
> > ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver.
> >
> > Using ZFS with Linux would be "mere aggregation" (see GPL
text).
> >
> > J?rg
> >
> >   
> No, the general consensus amongst Linux folks is that kernel modules 
> calling any kernel code are considered "part" of the Linux
kernel; this
> is still up for legal debate, of course, but this kind of very dark grey 
> area is something that Sun''s lawyers hate. Which means that having
a
> CDDL''d kernel driver is going to turn them sickly green, because
of the
> _very_ unknown legality of it.
Well, a German author definitely may do this as the German Copuyright
law allows to "use" a minor part of other peoples "work"
without asking in
case that there is a note on this fact. This is called: "Wissenschaftliches
Kleinzitat". I believe that the US Copyright law has a similar exception 
(called "fair use") but you need to ask the author.

> This issue is exactly why ATI/nVidia have their own GPL''d kernel 
> modules, but a proprietary driver.  As I mentioned before, ZFS almost 
> certainly needs Linux VFS hooks, which are _definitely_ going to be 
> considered GPL''d code, and thus, ZFS would be required to be
GPL-compatible.
>
> About the best I can suggest is that you look at the ZFS code and see 
> where it requires VFS access, and then write a kernel module which 
> exports a specific API to the kernel VFS layer, and port the ZFS code to 
> use that new API.  Go look at the aforementioned nVidia drivers for an 
> example of how they do it.  Or, maybe even look at the OSS (Open Sound 
> System) code for how to provide this kind of meta-API.
With knowledge on the fastly changing Linux kernel interfaces, this
seems to be the best way to go anyway :-)

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On 17/04/07, Erik Trimble <Erik.Trimble at sun.com> wrote:
> And, frankly, I can think of several very good reasons why Sun would NOT
> want to release a ZFS under the GPL
Not to mention the knock-on effects of those already using ZFS (apple, BSD)
who would be adversely affected by a GPL license.

-- 
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/

Hello Rayson,

Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote:

RH> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??
>>
>> Let''s leave ms out of this, eh? :-)
RH> While ZFS is nice, I don''t think it is a must for most desktop
users.

RH> For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world
RH> population) people who just use the computers to browse the web, check
RH> emails, do word processing, etc... don''t care. Even if they do
care, I
RH> don''t think those who do not backup their drive can really
understand
RH> how to use ZFS.

I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop, mostly for its
built-in reliability, free snapshots, built-in compression and
cryptography (soon) and easy to use.

ps. few days ago I encountered my first checksum error on my
    desktop system on a submirror (two sata drives in a zfs mirror). Thanks to
zfs it
    won''t be a problem and it''s already repaired.
    

-- 
Best regards,
 Robert                            mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl
                                       http://milek.blogspot.com

>
> It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks  
> for not
> liking ZFS.
I certainly don''t understand why they ignore it.

How can one have a "Storage and File Systems Workshop" in 2007  
without ZFS dominating the agenda??
http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/

That "long fscks" should be a hot topic, given the state of the art,  
is just bizarre.

--Toby
>
> J?rg
>
> -- 
>  EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling  
> D-13353 Berlin
>        js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)
>        schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog: http:// 
> schily.blogspot.com/
>  URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/ 
> pub/schily
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello Rayson,
>
> Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote:
>
> RH> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??
>>>
>>> Let''s leave ms out of this, eh? :-)
>
> RH> While ZFS is nice, I don''t think it is a must for most
desktop
> users.
>
> RH> For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world
> RH> population) people who just use the computers to browse the  
> web, check
> RH> emails, do word processing, etc... don''t care. Even if they
do
> care, I
> RH> don''t think those who do not backup their drive can really
> understand
> RH> how to use ZFS.
>
> I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop,
Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you. What''s interesting about its  
integration in OS X - and OS X in general - is it diffuses hitherto  
"server grade" technology (UNIX, inter alia) all the way down to  
everybody''s grandmother''s non-technical desktop/MacBook. Steve
definitely proved his point (starting with NeXT, of course); Linux  
and Solaris will inevitably arrive there too. To M********''s  
detriment :-)

--Toby
> mostly for its
> built-in reliability, free snapshots, built-in compression and
> cryptography (soon) and easy to use.
>
> ps. few days ago I encountered my first checksum error on my
>     desktop system on a submirror (two sata drives in a zfs  
> mirror). Thanks to zfs it
>     won''t be a problem and it''s already repaired.
>
>
> -- 
> Best regards,
>  Robert                            mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl
>                                        http://milek.blogspot.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Toby Thain wrote:
>>
>> It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for
not
>> liking ZFS.
> 
> I certainly don''t understand why they ignore it.
> 
> How can one have a "Storage and File Systems Workshop" in 2007
without
> ZFS dominating the agenda??
> http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/
> 
> That "long fscks" should be a hot topic, given the state of the
art, is
> just bizarre.
Reading through the topics in that article, I get a
real sense of NIH syndrome.

The presentation on the fsck problem in 2013 ... if
you''re still using a filesystem in 2013 that requires
you to fsck then I reckon you deserve what you get!
That''s 6 years away, surely even linux fs developers
can come up with something better in that time.


cheers,
James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer
Sun Microsystems

Hello Toby,

Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 3:39:39 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks  
>> for not
>> liking ZFS.
TT> I certainly don''t understand why they ignore it.

TT> How can one have a "Storage and File Systems Workshop" in 2007
TT> without ZFS dominating the agenda??
TT> http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/

Simply because it is "Linux Storage and File Systems Workshop".
You won''t expects presentations on raiserfs at Open Solaris conference
and definitely you won''t expect it to dominate conference.

And what they can do other than to ignore zfs? Right now Linux has
nothing even close to zfs.

Now many Linux people are just sys admins and they should be
interested in zfs. The question is if suvh conferences should be
mostly related to Linux when it comes to open source? I strongly
belive not. It''s up to our community and to Sun to engage several
conferences and in a way to advocate about technologies like zfs,
dtrace, etc. Even if we''re talking about small, local meetings.

Of course many people, especially from Linux crowd, will react
defensively when they will see Open Solaris topics on their
conferences, but hey - lets try to keep an open mind.

-- 
Best regards,
 Robert                            mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl
                                       http://milek.blogspot.com

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 01:22:28AM -0700, Erik Trimble
wrote:
> Also, note that kernel modules are considered part of the kernel and 
> covered by the derivative portion of the GPL, at least in the eyes of 
> most Linux folks.  ATI and nVidia get around this issue by producing a 
> GPL''d kernel module which provides stable ABI/API across many
different
> linux releases, then have their relevant drivers call this.  
> Theoretically, this might be possible with ZFS, but given that ZFS may 
> need deep interfacing with the VFS layers, I can''t see how a clean
> separation between a GPL''d ZFS kernel module (which you''d
have to write
> from scratch) and a CDDL''d driver can be made.
I thought ZFS code was structured so that the VFS-specific bits are in
the ZPL and the rest of ZFS compiles and runs in kernel- and user-land.
So you''d think that the biggest piece of work here would be the ZPL.

Still, I''d put the odds of a GZPL very near zero.
> And, frankly, I can think of several very good reasons why Sun would NOT 
> want to release a ZFS under the GPL - specifically, Linux is a direct 
> competitor to Solaris, and it does not benefit Sun (or, ultimately, 
> everyone) for all of Solaris'' features to be directly incorporated
into
> Linux.  Application-level compatibility between Linux and Solaris is 
> desirable for everyone, but there are still significant advantages to 
> OS-level feature differentiation.
I agree.

On 17-Apr-07, at 10:56 AM, James C. McPherson wrote:
> Toby Thain wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks  
>>> for not
>>> liking ZFS.
>> I certainly don''t understand why they ignore it.
>> How can one have a "Storage and File Systems Workshop" in
2007
>> without ZFS dominating the agenda??
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/
>> That "long fscks" should be a hot topic, given the state of
the
>> art, is just bizarre.
>
> Reading through the topics in that article, I get a
> real sense of NIH syndrome.
>
> The presentation on the fsck problem in 2013 ... if
> you''re still using a filesystem in 2013 that requires
> you to fsck then I reckon you deserve what you get!
> That''s 6 years away, surely even linux fs developers
> can come up with something better in that time.
They already did, in Reiser 3 & 4, which makes it even stranger.

--Toby
>
>
> cheers,
> James C. McPherson
> --
> Solaris kernel software engineer
> Sun Microsystems

On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>
>> Hello Rayson,
>>
>> Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> RH> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>> How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??
>>>>
>>>> Let''s leave ms out of this, eh? :-)
>>
>> RH> While ZFS is nice, I don''t think it is a must for most
desktop
>> users.
>>
>> RH> For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world
>> RH> population) people who just use the computers to browse the  
>> web, check
>> RH> emails, do word processing, etc... don''t care. Even if
they do
>> care, I
>> RH> don''t think those who do not backup their drive can
really
>> understand
>> RH> how to use ZFS.
>>
>> I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop,
>
> Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you.
I would agree as well. With the proper UI (which I hope Apple has or  
will eventually have -- waiting to get Leopard! as I have not yet  
renewed my paid developer program at Apple) ZFS is a killer on the  
desktop, especially on OS X where everything of importance has to be  
or likes to live on the boot device (I understand that OS X does not  
yet support booting on ZFS but someday it will), but on any consumer  
class desktop it is killer because it removes the need to worry about  
disks from the end user.  You need more space, buy a new disk or two  
and then just add them into the "pool" of storage.
> What''s interesting about its integration in OS X - and OS X in  
> general - is it diffuses hitherto "server grade" technology
(UNIX,
> inter alia) all the way down to everybody''s grandmother''s
non-
> technical desktop/MacBook. Steve definitely proved his point  
> (starting with NeXT, of course); Linux and Solaris will inevitably  
> arrive there too. To M********''s detriment :-)
Yep

Chad
>
> --Toby
>
>> mostly for its
>> built-in reliability, free snapshots, built-in compression and
>> cryptography (soon) and easy to use.
>>
>> ps. few days ago I encountered my first checksum error on my
>>     desktop system on a submirror (two sata drives in a zfs  
>> mirror). Thanks to zfs it
>>     won''t be a problem and it''s already repaired.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>>  Robert                            mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl
>>                                        http://milek.blogspot.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> zfs-discuss mailing list
>> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop,
>>
>> Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you.
>
> I would agree as well. With the proper UI (which I hope Apple has  
> or will eventually have -- waiting to get Leopard!
Full disclosure: I don''t think anyone outside Apple yet knows for  
SURE if it''s going to be in Leopard (or even a future release). Found  
this sceptical article today - or is it out of date?
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/8/15/4995
> as I have not yet renewed my paid developer program at Apple) ZFS  
> is a killer on the desktop, especially on OS X where everything of  
> importance has to be or likes to live on the boot device (I  
> understand that OS X does not yet support booting on ZFS but  
> someday it will), but on any consumer class desktop it is killer  
> because it removes the need to worry about disks from the end  
> user.  You need more space, buy a new disk or two and then just add  
> them into the "pool" of storage.
The killer feature for me is checksumming and self-healing.

--Toby
>
...

On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop,
>>>
>>> Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you.
>>
>> I would agree as well. With the proper UI (which I hope Apple has  
>> or will eventually have -- waiting to get Leopard!
>
> Full disclosure: I don''t think anyone outside Apple yet knows for
> SURE if it''s going to be in Leopard (or even a future release).  
> Found this sceptical article today - or is it out of date?
> http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/8/15/4995
>
I don''t have any insider or NDA knowledge (as I said, I have not yet  
re-upped my paid developer status and have not had any of the leopard  
seeds), but there have been screenshots from Leopard seeds posted  
that show ZFS volume creation options etc in dialog boxes.  Again,  
who knows if it will actually ship with that feature.  But it has  
been shipped in seeds as far as I know.  Siracusa''s column is old.

Chad

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
> The killer feature for me is checksumming and self-healing.
Same here.  I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for
desktop use ("who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop
machine?!") doesn''t get it.  (A close 2nd for me personally is the
ease of creating mirrors, but granted that''s on my servers rather than
my desktop.)

-- 
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member

CEO,
My Online Home Inventory

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
      http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com

On 4/17/07, Rich Teer <rich.teer at rite-group.com>
wrote:
> Same here.  I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for
> desktop use ("who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop
> machine?!") doesn''t get it.
Well, for many of those who find it hard to upgrade Windows, I guess
you will have a hard time teaching them how to use ZFS.

Rayson


>  (A close 2nd for me personally is the
> ease of creating mirrors, but granted that''s on my servers rather
than
> my desktop.)
>
> --
> Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
>
> CEO,
> My Online Home Inventory
>
> Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
> URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
>      http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>

On 17-Apr-07, at 1:08 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop,
>>>>
>>>> Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you.
>>>
>>> I would agree as well. With the proper UI (which I hope Apple has  
>>> or will eventually have -- waiting to get Leopard!
>>
>> Full disclosure: I don''t think anyone outside Apple yet knows
for
>> SURE if it''s going to be in Leopard (or even a future
release).
>> Found this sceptical article today - or is it out of date?
>> http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/8/15/4995
>>
>
> I don''t have any insider or NDA knowledge (as I said, I have not  
> yet re-upped my paid developer status and have not had any of the  
> leopard seeds), but there have been screenshots from Leopard seeds  
> posted that show ZFS volume creation options etc in dialog boxes.
Yes, I''ve seen those - in fact I posted their d?but on this list.  
Knowing canny old buzzmeister Steve though, anything could happen. :)

--T
> Again, who knows if it will actually ship with that feature.  But  
> it has been shipped in seeds as far as I know.  Siracusa''s column
> is old.
>
> Chad
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

On 17-Apr-07, at 1:24 PM, Rayson Ho wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Rich Teer <rich.teer at rite-group.com> wrote:
>> Same here.  I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being  
>> inappropriate for
>> desktop use ("who needs access to Petabytes of space in their
desktop
>> machine?!") doesn''t get it.
>
> Well, for many of those who find it hard to upgrade Windows, I guess
> you will have a hard time teaching them how to use ZFS.
OS X tends to effectively elide the "book larning" part of using  
UNIX. I don''t think ZFS would be any exception - they won''t
ship
until "you don''t even know it''s there".

--Toby
>
> Rayson
>
>
>
>>  (A close 2nd for me personally is the
>> ease of creating mirrors, but granted that''s on my servers
rather
>> than
>> my desktop.)
>>
>> --
>> Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
>>
>> CEO,
>> My Online Home Inventory
>>
>> Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
>> URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
>>      http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> zfs-discuss mailing list
>> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

this port was done in the case of QFS
how come they managed to release a QFS for linux?

On 4/17/07, Erik Trimble <Erik.Trimble at sun.com>
wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > "David R. Litwin" <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <weeyeh at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
> >>>> released under a License which _is_ GPL
> >>>> compatible?
> >>>>
> >>> So why do you think should it be released under a GPL
compatible license?
> >>>
> >> So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
> >>
> >
> > This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make
> > ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver.
> >
> > Using ZFS with Linux would be "mere aggregation" (see GPL
text).
> >
> > J?rg
> >
> >
> No, the general consensus amongst Linux folks is that kernel modules
> calling any kernel code are considered "part" of the Linux
kernel; this
> is still up for legal debate, of course, but this kind of very dark grey
> area is something that Sun''s lawyers hate. Which means that having
a
> CDDL''d kernel driver is going to turn them sickly green, because
of the
> _very_ unknown legality of it.
>
> This issue is exactly why ATI/nVidia have their own GPL''d kernel
> modules, but a proprietary driver.  As I mentioned before, ZFS almost
> certainly needs Linux VFS hooks, which are _definitely_ going to be
> considered GPL''d code, and thus, ZFS would be required to be
GPL-compatible.
>
> About the best I can suggest is that you look at the ZFS code and see
> where it requires VFS access, and then write a kernel module which
> exports a specific API to the kernel VFS layer, and port the ZFS code to
> use that new API.  Go look at the aforementioned nVidia drivers for an
> example of how they do it.  Or, maybe even look at the OSS (Open Sound
> System) code for how to provide this kind of meta-API.
>
> --
> Erik Trimble
> Java System Support
> Mailstop:  usca22-123
> Phone:  x17195
> Santa Clara, CA
> Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>

On 4/17/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca>
wrote:
> OS X tends to effectively elide the "book larning" part of using
> UNIX. I don''t think ZFS would be any exception - they
won''t ship
> until "you don''t even know it''s there".
But then, I have helped people "fixing" their computers by emptying
the recycle bin!!

Apple is integrating DTrace too, and yet I don''t see more than 10% of
the Mac users writing "D" programs.

Rayson


>
> --Toby
>
> >
> > Rayson
> >
> >
> >
> >>  (A close 2nd for me personally is the
> >> ease of creating mirrors, but granted that''s on my
servers rather
> >> than
> >> my desktop.)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
> >>
> >> CEO,
> >> My Online Home Inventory
> >>
> >> Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
> >> URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
> >>      http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> zfs-discuss mailing list
> >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > zfs-discuss mailing list
> > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
>

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 01:00:00PM -0400, Rayson Ho
wrote:
> Apple is integrating DTrace too, and yet I don''t see more than 10%
of
> the Mac users writing "D" programs.
But 100% of MacOS users might end up using DTrace without knowing it.

On 17-Apr-07, at 2:00 PM, Rayson Ho wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:
>> OS X tends to effectively elide the "book larning" part of
using
>> UNIX. I don''t think ZFS would be any exception - they
won''t ship
>> until "you don''t even know it''s there".
>
> But then, I have helped people "fixing" their computers by
emptying
> the recycle bin!!
There are things I''d change in OS X. But for "everyman," it
beats
everything else, especially of course Windows. For power users too,  
but that''s another topic.

I think ZFS helps the filesystem layer become more reliable, self- 
tuning, and invisible... consistent with OS X''s general approach, IMHO.
>
> Apple is integrating DTrace too, and yet I don''t see more than 10%
of
> the Mac users writing "D" programs.
I don''t see more than 1 in 10000 doing it :-)

--Toby
>
> Rayson
>
>
>
>>
>> --Toby
>>
>> >
>> > Rayson
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>  (A close 2nd for me personally is the
>> >> ease of creating mirrors, but granted that''s on my
servers rather
>> >> than
>> >> my desktop.)
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
>> >>
>> >> CEO,
>> >> My Online Home Inventory
>> >>
>> >> Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
>> >> URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
>> >>      http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> zfs-discuss mailing list
>> >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > zfs-discuss mailing list
>> > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Does any one know how Veritas implemented vxfs and vxvm on Linux?

They must have the same problem because vxfs and vxvm is not GPLed as far as I
know.

/Ove
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > "David R. Litwin" <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <weeyeh at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>     
> >>> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>       
> >>>> So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
> >>>> released under a License which _is_ GPL
> >>>> compatible?
> >>>>         
> >>> So why do you think should it be released under a GPL
compatible license?
> >>>       
> >> So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
> >>     
> >
> > This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make
> > ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver.
> >
> > Using ZFS with Linux would be "mere aggregation" (see GPL
text).
> >
> > J?rg
> >
> >   
> No, the general consensus amongst Linux folks is that kernel modules 
> calling any kernel code are considered "part" of the Linux
kernel; this
> is still up for legal debate, of course, but this kind of very dark grey 
> area is something that Sun''s lawyers hate. Which means that having
a
> CDDL''d kernel driver is going to turn them sickly green, because
of the
> _very_ unknown legality of it.
> 
> This issue is exactly why ATI/nVidia have their own GPL''d kernel 
> modules, but a proprietary driver.  As I mentioned before, ZFS almost 
> certainly needs Linux VFS hooks, which are _definitely_ going to be 
> considered GPL''d code, and thus, ZFS would be
> required to be GPL-compatible.
> 
> About the best I can suggest is that you look at the ZFS code and see 
> where it requires VFS access, and then write a kernel module which 
> exports a specific API to the kernel VFS layer, and port the ZFS code to 
> use that new API.  Go look at the aforementioned nVidia drivers for an 
> example of how they do it.  Or, maybe even look at the OSS (Open Sound 
> System) code for how to provide this kind of meta-API.
> 
> -- 
> Erik Trimble
> Java System Support
> Mailstop:  usca22-123
> Phone:  x17195
> Santa Clara, CA
> Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On 17/04/07, Rayson Ho <rayrayson at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Rich Teer <rich.teer at rite-group.com> wrote:
> > Same here.  I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate
for
> > desktop use ("who needs access to Petabytes of space in their
desktop
> > machine?!") doesn''t get it.
>
> Well, for many of those who find it hard to upgrade Windows, I guess
> you will have a hard time teaching them how to use ZFS.
I doubt it - google around for some Time Machine mockups. Apple will sell
this easily.

-- 
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/

Erblichs wrote:
> 	Whose job is it to "clean" or declare for removal kernel
> 	sources that "do not work"?
not the people on *this* list, IMO.

Michael
-- 
Michael Schuster
Recursion, n.: see ''Recursion''

On 18-Apr-07, at 4:26 AM, Erblichs wrote:
> Toby Thain,
>
> 	I am sure someone will divise a method of subdividing
> 	the FS and run a background fsck and/or checksums on the
> 	different file objects or ...  before this becomes a issue. :)
In the meantime I''ll just use filesystems that don''t feature
fsck.

--Toby
>
> 	Mitchell Erblich
> 	-----------------
>
> 	
>
> Toby Thain wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks
>>> for not
>>> liking ZFS.
>>
>> I certainly don''t understand why they ignore it.
>>
>> How can one have a "Storage and File Systems Workshop" in
2007
>> without ZFS dominating the agenda??
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/
>>
>> That "long fscks" should be a hot topic, given the state of
the art,
>> is just bizarre.
>>
>> --Toby

On 18/04/07, Erblichs <erblichs at earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Rich Teer,
>
>         I have a perfect app for the masses.
>
>         A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV
>         and audio setup.
>
>         I would think the average person would want
>          to have access to 1000s of DVDs / CDs within
>          a small box versus taking up the full wall.
This is already being done now, and most of the companies doing it are
being sued like crazy :)

-- 
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright

Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/

Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 18/04/07, Erblichs <erblichs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Rich Teer,
>>
>>         I have a perfect app for the masses.
>>
>>         A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV
>>         and audio setup.
>>
>>         I would think the average person would want
>>          to have access to 1000s of DVDs / CDs within
>>          a small box versus taking up the full wall.
>
>
> This is already being done now, and most of the companies doing it are
> being sued like crazy :)
>
Nope, just about every Hi-Fi manufacturer out there sells a hard disk
player that can load CDs.  One thing that they never mention is that the
systems use a single disk.  ZFS would be fit a good fit in that market,
if ZFS had been there when I was working in that sector, I would have
been using it.

Ian

On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <weeyeh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
> > > released under a License which _is_ GPL
> > > compatible?
> >
> > So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible
license?
>
> So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
That matters to the developers of ZFS/OpenSolaris how?

Also, note that we are not sure if GPL really matters in the case of
porting a filesystem to Linux.  As others have brought up, there are
many commercial file systems/volume managers available in Linux as
well.
> On the flip side, why shouldn''t it be?
Therein lies the difference in perspective.  Linux folks thinks it''s
OpenSolaris''s fault that ZFS cannot be integrated into Linux.
OpenSolaris folks do not think so.  If I''m your neighbour and
I''m
looking at expanding my house in your direction, should you move out
of the way?


-- 
Just me,
Wire ...

On 17-Apr-07, at 10:54 PM, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <weeyeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > > So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
>> > > released under a License which _is_ GPL
>> > > compatible?
>> >
>> > So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible  
>> license?
>>
>> So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
>
> That matters to the developers of ZFS/OpenSolaris how?
>
> Also, note that we are not sure if GPL really matters in the case of
> porting a filesystem to Linux.  As others have brought up, there are
> many commercial file systems/volume managers available in Linux as
> well.
>
>> On the flip side, why shouldn''t it be?
>
> Therein lies the difference in perspective.  Linux folks thinks
it''s
> OpenSolaris''s fault that ZFS cannot be integrated into Linux.
> OpenSolaris folks do not think so.
The OpenSolaris folks here seem to think it''s Linux'' fault.
Impasse.

But I''m sworn not to discuss this here :)

--T
> If I''m your neighbour and I''m
> looking at expanding my house in your direction, should you move out
> of the way?
>
>
> -- 
> Just me,
> Wire ...
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Group,

	Did Joerg Schilling bring up a bigger issue within this
	discussion thread?
> And it seems that you missunderstand the way the Linux kernel is developed.
> If _you_ started a ZFS project for Linux, _you_ would need to maintain it
too
> or otherwise it would not be kept up to date. Note that it is a well known
> fact that a lot of the non-mainstream parts of the linux kernel sources
> do not work although they _are_ part of the linux kernel source tree.
	Whose job is it to "clean" or declare for removal kernel
	sources that "do not work"?

	Mitchell Erblich
	-------------------

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> 
> "David R. Litwin" <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > If you refer to the licensing, yes. Coding-wise, I have no idea exept
> > to say that I would be VERY surprised if ZFS can not be ported to
> > Linux, especially since there already
> > exists the FUSE project.
> 
> So if you are interested in this project, I would encourage you to just
start
> with the code...
> 
> > > ZFS is not part of the Linux Kernel. Only if you declare ZFS a
"part of
> > > Linux", you will observe the license conflict.
> >
> >
> > And, as brought up elsewhere, ZFS would have to be a part of the
> > Kernel -- or else some persons would have to employ Herculean
> > attention to make sure ZFS was upgraded with the kernel. if some one
> > were
> > willing to do this, a swift resolution MAY ba possible.
> 
> The fact that someone may put the ZFS sources in the Linux source tree
> does not make it a part of that software....
> 
> And it seems that you missunderstand the way the Linux kernel is developed.
> If _you_ started a ZFS project for Linux, _you_ would need to maintain it
too
> or otherwise it would not be kept up to date. Note that it is a well known
> fact that a lot of the non-mainstream parts of the linux kernel sources
> do not work although they _are_ part of the linux kernel source tree.
> 
> Creating a port does not mean that you may forget about it once you believe
that
> you are ready.
> 
> > The GPL is talking about "works" and there is no problem to
use GPL code
> > > together with code under other licenses as long as this is mere
> > > aggregation
> > > (like creating a driver for Linux) instead of creating a
"derived work".
> > >
> > > It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks
for not
> > > liking ZFS.
> >
> >
> > Indeed? What are these reasons? I want to have every thing in the
open.
> 
> This is something you would need to ask the Linux kernel folks....
> 
> J?rg
> 
> --
>  EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353
Berlin
>        js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)
>        schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
>  URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Toby Thain,

	I am sure someone will divise a method of subdividing
	the FS and run a background fsck and/or checksums on the
	different file objects or ...  before this becomes a issue. :)

	Mitchell Erblich
	-----------------

	

Toby Thain wrote:
> 
> >
> > It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks
> > for not
> > liking ZFS.
> 
> I certainly don''t understand why they ignore it.
> 
> How can one have a "Storage and File Systems Workshop" in 2007
> without ZFS dominating the agenda??
> http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/
> 
> That "long fscks" should be a hot topic, given the state of the
art,
> is just bizarre.
> 
> --Toby
> 
> >
> > J?rg
> >
> > --
> >  EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling
> > D-13353 Berlin
> >        js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)
> >        schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog: http://
> > schily.blogspot.com/
> >  URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/
> > pub/schily
> > _______________________________________________
> > zfs-discuss mailing list
> > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Rich Teer,

	I have a perfect app for the masses.

	A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV
	and audio setup.
	
	I would think the average person would want
	 to have access to 1000s of DVDs / CDs within
         a small box versus taking up the full wall.

	Yes, assuming the quality was their...

	Extrapolating the cost of drives, this is now
	 reality for the few but given 1.5 years this
	 is for the masses.

	Wouldn''t this sell enough boxes to make this
	 the newer killer app??

	Mitchell Erblich
	Sr Software Engineer
	

Rich Teer wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
> 
> > The killer feature for me is checksumming and self-healing.
> 
> Same here.  I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for
> desktop use ("who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop
> machine?!") doesn''t get it.  (A close 2nd for me personally
is the
> ease of creating mirrors, but granted that''s on my servers rather
than
> my desktop.)
> 
> --
> Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
> 
> CEO,
> My Online Home Inventory
> 
> Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
> URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
>       http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:
> > Therein lies the difference in perspective.  Linux folks thinks
it''s
> > OpenSolaris''s fault that ZFS cannot be integrated into Linux.
> > OpenSolaris folks do not think so.
>
> The OpenSolaris folks here seem to think it''s Linux''
fault. Impasse.
Let me repeat it again:

The main problem is a technical problem of porting.

The CDDL allows code under the CDDL to be combined with any other type
of code. It would be interesting to read a claim that "proves" that a
possible (not even proven) license problem makes it a problem at the
OpenSolaris side.

If someone is really interested in ZFS on Linux, he should go on and start
the port. Once he is ready and the Linux folks are interested in ZFS, I am 
shure the "license problems" will have gone away ;-)

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

*If* someone were to do the port *and* there is demand for it, the lawyers 
would settle out the license issues. Remember which is the dog and which 
is the tail.

I like the ''take a look at what Vertias'' did suggestion. has
anyone done
so?





Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> 
Sent by: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org
04/17/2007 10:56 PM

To
Wee Yeh Tan <weeyeh at gmail.com>
cc
zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
Subject
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)







On 17-Apr-07, at 10:54 PM, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <weeyeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <presently42 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > > So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
>> > > released under a License which _is_ GPL
>> > > compatible?
>> >
>> > So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible 
>> license?
>>
>> So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
>
> That matters to the developers of ZFS/OpenSolaris how?
>
> Also, note that we are not sure if GPL really matters in the case of
> porting a filesystem to Linux.  As others have brought up, there are
> many commercial file systems/volume managers available in Linux as
> well.
>
>> On the flip side, why shouldn''t it be?
>
> Therein lies the difference in perspective.  Linux folks thinks
it''s
> OpenSolaris''s fault that ZFS cannot be integrated into Linux.
> OpenSolaris folks do not think so.
The OpenSolaris folks here seem to think it''s Linux'' fault.
Impasse.

But I''m sworn not to discuss this here :)

--T
> If I''m your neighbour and I''m
> looking at expanding my house in your direction, should you move out
> of the way?
>
>
> -- 
> Just me,
> Wire ...
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070418/e076ebf0/attachment.html>

Bob Bownes wrote:
> I like the ''take a look at what Vertias'' did suggestion.
has anyone done
> so?
Does anyone *know* what Veritas did? I tried Google. It seems VxFS for 
Linux is not GPL.

I saw posts on the linux-kernel list expressing concerns about potential 
GPL violations when accepting patches from Veritas. Here''s one:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0308.0/1600.html

But other than that, no one seems to have a problem... ;)

Cheers
Manoj

>Bob Bownes wrote:
>
>> I like the ''take a look at what Vertias'' did
suggestion. has anyone done
>> so?
>
>Does anyone *know* what Veritas did? I tried Google. It seems VxFS for 
>Linux is not GPL.

And why would it need to be?  As long as you don''t distribute it as
part of the Linux kernel or with a Linux kernel, you should be
perfectly fine.

(It is the end user who gets to assemble the bits; he cannot distribute
the results any further but an enduser is not bound by any of the
GPL terms which specifically restrict the way in you can copy or
redistribute)

Casper

Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
> And why would it need to be? As long as you don''t distribute it as
> part of the Linux kernel or with a Linux kernel, you should be
> perfectly fine.
>
> (It is the end user who gets to assemble the bits; he cannot distribute
> the results any further but an enduser is not bound by any of the
> GPL terms which specifically restrict the way in you can copy or
> redistribute)
>
> Casper
> _______________________________________________
>   
It doesn''t work that way. If the code can be considered to be part of a
larger whole, then it gets covered by the GPL.  Doesn''t matter if you 
distribute the code section separately.   The sticky part is what 
constitutes a "whole" - are kernel modules considered part of the
Linux
kernel as a whole?  That''s the legal grey area;  the general Linux 
community seems to be on the side of "yes".  It''s a similar
problem as
to linking against a GPL''d library. There isn''t a good
definition (legal
or otherwise) as to what constitutes a separate program, and what is an 
extention to an existing program.

I agree that looking at Veritas'' solution is a real good idea. At
least,
if ZFS was implemented the same way, there would be TWO companies making 
the argument that doing it that way is not violating the GPL.

-- 
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop:  usca22-123
Phone:  x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)

>It doesn''t work that way. If the code can be considered to be part
of a
>larger whole, then it gets covered by the GPL.  Doesn''t matter if
you
>distribute the code section separately.   The sticky part is what 
>constitutes a "whole" - are kernel modules considered part of the
Linux
>kernel as a whole?  That''s the legal grey area;  the general Linux 
>community seems to be on the side of "yes".
I think that lawyers will find that argument at most amusing.

Casper

On 18/04/07, Erik Trimble <Erik.Trimble at sun.com>
wrote:
> Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
> > And why would it need to be? As long as you don''t distribute
it as
> > part of the Linux kernel or with a Linux kernel, you should be
> > perfectly fine.
> >
> > (It is the end user who gets to assemble the bits; he cannot
distribute
> > the results any further but an enduser is not bound by any of the
> > GPL terms which specifically restrict the way in you can copy or
> > redistribute)
> >
> > Casper
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> It doesn''t work that way. If the code can be considered to be part
of a
> larger whole, then it gets covered by the GPL.  Doesn''t matter if
you
> distribute the code section separately.   The sticky part is what
> constitutes a "whole" - are kernel modules considered part of the
Linux
> kernel as a whole?  That''s the legal grey area;  the general Linux
> community seems to be on the side of "yes".  It''s a
similar problem as
> to linking against a GPL''d library. There isn''t a good
definition (legal
> or otherwise) as to what constitutes a separate program, and what is an
> extention to an existing program.
I don''t agree with that interpretation, and I can cite so many
examples that disprove it.

Also, I have seen several people here claim that nVidia/ATi have a GPL
"shim" for their driver, which at last check is NOT true. Even if they
did, Stallman has stated quite clearly that such a mechanism is not
sufficient to bypass the requirements of the GPL.

vmware, ATi, nVidia, Veritas, and *many* other vendors all have
binary-only kernel modules with or without shims or any kind and have
no issue distributing their modules. I believe they all have to be
compiled or "linked" to work with the current kernel version, but it
seems to bypass the licensing issues.

Linus seems to support this view:

nVidia:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/234
http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/5/125
http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/10/152

General:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/13/370

In short, code that was written without any _Linux_ origin can
probably be ported and distributed without issue in his view though a
Judge could decide otherwise and some kernel developers feel
otherwise.

-- 
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright

Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/

Gents, how come this thread - without any relation to zfs at all - is
discussed on this list? Do move this irrelevant thread to another
fora.

My intentions subscribing to this list was *not* to read about
lay-man''s perception of this nor that license!

regards
Claus


On 4/18/07, Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 18/04/07, Erik Trimble <Erik.Trimble at sun.com> wrote:
> > Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
> > > And why would it need to be? As long as you don''t
distribute it as
> > > part of the Linux kernel or with a Linux kernel, you should be
> > > perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > (It is the end user who gets to assemble the bits; he cannot
distribute
> > > the results any further but an enduser is not bound by any of the
> > > GPL terms which specifically restrict the way in you can copy or
> > > redistribute)
> > >
> > > Casper
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > It doesn''t work that way. If the code can be considered to be
part of a
> > larger whole, then it gets covered by the GPL.  Doesn''t
matter if you
> > distribute the code section separately.   The sticky part is what
> > constitutes a "whole" - are kernel modules considered part
of the Linux
> > kernel as a whole?  That''s the legal grey area;  the general
Linux
> > community seems to be on the side of "yes".  It''s a
similar problem as
> > to linking against a GPL''d library. There isn''t a
good definition (legal
> > or otherwise) as to what constitutes a separate program, and what is
an
> > extention to an existing program.
>
> I don''t agree with that interpretation, and I can cite so many
> examples that disprove it.
>
> Also, I have seen several people here claim that nVidia/ATi have a GPL
> "shim" for their driver, which at last check is NOT true. Even if
they
> did, Stallman has stated quite clearly that such a mechanism is not
> sufficient to bypass the requirements of the GPL.
>
> vmware, ATi, nVidia, Veritas, and *many* other vendors all have
> binary-only kernel modules with or without shims or any kind and have
> no issue distributing their modules. I believe they all have to be
> compiled or "linked" to work with the current kernel version, but
it
> seems to bypass the licensing issues.
>
> Linus seems to support this view:
>
> nVidia:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/234
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/5/125
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/10/152
>
> General:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/13/370
>
> In short, code that was written without any _Linux_ origin can
> probably be ported and distributed without issue in his view though a
> Judge could decide otherwise and some kernel developers feel
> otherwise.
>
> --
> "Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright
>
> Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
> binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>

Claus Guttesen wrote:
> Gents, how come this thread - without any relation to zfs at all - is
> discussed on this list? Do move this irrelevant thread to another
> fora.
>
> My intentions subscribing to this list was *not* to read about
> lay-man''s perception of this nor that license!

Because discussing licensing issues is something that anyone
and everyone can do easily by adding their $0.02 worth.

Actually sitting down and doing something hard (like porting
ZFS - one way or another - to Linux), well, the word
procrastination comes to mind and gee, isn''t it easier to
come up with reasons /not/ to do it?

If someone really wanted ZFS on Linux, they''d just do it -
licence/patents be damned.

Darren

Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
> Actually sitting down and doing something hard (like porting
> ZFS - one way or another - to Linux), well, the word
> procrastination comes to mind and gee, isn''t it easier to
> come up with reasons /not/ to do it?
>
> If someone really wanted ZFS on Linux, they''d just do it -
> licence/patents be damned.
It seems that those people are a minority who know that......

....A discussion on porting starting with a license talk means 
that there is no real technical interest on the port.

ZFS is a piece of code that is published under a free licence that
does not prevent using it with other code. Asking in this list is asking the 
wrong people. In addition, I believe Sun will not sue people who use ZFS 
because it is allowed. I do not understand why some people from the Linux camp
believe that there is a problem, except when they believe that Linux is
not free enough ;-)

Let me repeat it another time: If there is interest on having ZFS on Linux,
people should start a port!

You cannot enforce such a port, you may just create the needed freedom
in the code and the CDDL used for ZFS gives enough freedom. This has been 
proven by the FreeBSD people and by Apple.

If the license discussion continues, I get the impression that some people
from the Linux camp are just jealous because they believe that Linux is not
free enough for using ZFS. Well, I believe that the GPL gives that freedom,
why do those Linux people believe that there is a problem? So please can we have
a discussion based on technical problems and not waste time with endless
license discussions?



J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:36:38AM +0200, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
> 
> > Actually sitting down and doing something hard (like porting
> > ZFS - one way or another - to Linux), well, the word
> > procrastination comes to mind and gee, isn''t it easier to
> > come up with reasons /not/ to do it?
> >
> > If someone really wanted ZFS on Linux, they''d just do it -
> > licence/patents be damned.
> 
> It seems that those people are a minority who know that......
> 
> ....A discussion on porting starting with a license talk means 
> that there is no real technical interest on the port.
Boy, is that ever the truth.  If there is technical interest in a port,
one should, um, do the port.  Frankly, the license chatter emanating from
the lwn.net crowd smells like just another way of expressing NIH --
it''s
a convenient excuse to not do something that they really don''t want to
do
anyway.  (This certainly seems to be the case for DTrace and Linux, 
where the license difference seems to have become an excuse to ignore
everything about DTrace and to do their own thing.)  And I will confess
that I have found the sense of NIH coming out of certain segments of Linux
development to be at times so overwhelming that I have found myself
wondering:  if we GPL''d Solaris, would that not give the lie to this
excuse, and expose the Linux NIH for what it is?  Especially ironic about
the Linux NIH is that it seems to be a relatively new phenomenon:  not
so long ago, the ability to absorb innovation from elsewhere was arguably
Linux''s stock-in-trade.  That era, however, seems to be indisuputably
over, viz. the stubborn reluctance to so much as glance at ZFS, DTrace
and a host of other innovations born outside of Linux...

	- Bryan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development.       http://blogs.sun.com/bmc

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 17:25 -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> >         I would think the average person would want
> >          to have access to 1000s of DVDs / CDs within
> >          a small box versus taking up the full wall.
> 
> This is already being done now, and most of the companies doing it are
> being sued like crazy :)
The legal entanglements seem to specifically be around hard-disk-based
DVD jukeboxes.  But it''s not completely hopeless -- one of them
recently
won a first round in court:

http://www.kaleidescape.com/company/pr/PR-20070329-DVDCCA.html


						- Bill