What is Digg?Sponsored by Newegg.com
$5,000 Newegg Eggstreme Challenge Video Contest Extended to 11/15 view!
newegg.com - Show them what YOU would do with the money you save by shopping at Newegg. Seriously, show them...
53 Comments
- wbrendel, on 05/18/2009, -3/+34The writer claims ZFS was licensed under CDDL intentionally to block Linux from using it. That's simply not true. There are big pieces of ZFS that are part of agreements with other companies, and changing the license to something compatible with the GPL is problematic.
- mdmcgee, on 05/18/2009, -5/+27"Sun had intentionally open sourced and released ZFS under the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) as a way to prevent..."
*****, Sun released ZFS under CDDL as that was the license they chose for OpenSolaris. It wasn't meant to prevent anything. There is absolutely nothing that would prevent anyone from re-implementing the code under Linux. I know someone who has done it in Java for God's sake so it obviously wouldn't take that much work.
Sun chose their license for their code. It is open enough so BSD and Mac already
have fully functional ports. Not everything is a tinfoil hat conspiracy and not everything is about Linux. - godofpumpkins, on 05/18/2009, -1/+17It's rather inflammatory of the author to off-handedly state that Sun licensed ZFS under CDDL with the sole purpose of making it not work with Linux, especially as he then goes on to weaken his own argument by saying it works fine with the BSDs.
I'm not saying I know Sun's motivation for using the CDDL, but the GPL is well known to be incompatible with many licenses, and it's also well known that its terms bother many private and corporate users. If you're writing a new license, and want to be compatible with the GPL, you pretty much need to rewrite the GPL., which isn't feasible in many environments.
I don't think the GPL would be out of place on ZFS, but it's a contentious issue and given the comparative lack of other content in the article, the blog post feels like a way of underhandedly pushing the point that Sun hates Linux. I won't bury the article because of it, but it does make me uncomfortable. - Darkhacker, on 05/18/2009, -5/+18This is one example of why I tend to avoid the GPL. I believe that a core component behind the open source ideal is code sharing. Licenses like the GPL and CDDL seem to prevent that in some ways. They are similar licenses but are incompatible with each other. I struggle to think of a license that's incompatible with the BSD license of similar licenses of its kind which is why I prefer it. I honestly don't mind that a private company may use my code and lock up their changes. I would certainly hope they contribute back but I think even private businesses shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.
Another reason is that Richard Stallman is a complete fanatic. He doesn't recommend OpenBSD or Debian simply for the reason that they link to non-free software; even though the repository for that software is hosted on a separate server. And in the case of OpenBSD, they don't even operate those servers, their ports system just links to the non-free applications and even that is too much for RMS. I do admire RMS for sticking to his guns, but the point at which he draws the line seems arbitrary. It's not okay to merely link to non-free software but it is okay to port GCC to a non-free OS and allow non-free programs to be compiled with it. It seems hypocritical in a way. Stallman even went so far as to say that he wouldn't recommend Gobuntu (the free software only equivalent of Ubuntu) because the name sounds too much alike and could confuse users. I don't feel comfortable knowing a person like Stallman is in charge of future versions of the GPL. I obviously wouldn't be forced to put my code under the new version, but it makes me uncomfortable that a lot of developers would "just because". And any GNU software would likely go under the new license because the FSF is in charge of it.
I understand that a lot of people do not want to use the BSD as they don't want any changes locked up by those who extend it. In which case I would at least plea with you to use the LGPL. This way you get the desired effect of forcing all changes to be released while still having your software linked and used in other systems. This is true for all applications, not just libraries like people tend to think when talking about the LGPL. I would encourage everyone to relicense their applications under it.
Granted this is just my opinion. I'm not starting a GPL vs BSD war because they are two different licenses with two different goals. All I'm saying is that if you do choose the GPL route, that you would consider using the LGPL instead to promote better sharing and prevent the kinds of issues the article talks about. - HiVoltRock, on 05/18/2009, -0/+13"Chris Mason assures to the team, that Oracle has not changed the plans for Btrfs and that its development and growth will continue"
- clip9, on 05/18/2009, -1/+14Btrfs is already so close to usable that even if Oracle pulls the plug someone else can pick it up again.
- mrsteveman1, on 05/18/2009, -0/+10It's in there now, open a terminal and type "zfs". Its read only, and there is a read-write set of files available but they are outdated and configured wrong (kernel panic on missing device).
- angryfirelord, on 05/18/2009, -4/+13Except that a lot of Sun's technology isn't developed in with itself. A lot of the development is licensed by other companies, so it's not like Sun (or Oracle in this case) can simply snap their fingers and everything is changed.
Personally, I'd say the problem with Linux is the GPL. It's too restrictive for commercial work. That's why FreeBSD is getting stuff like D-Trace and ZFS whereas the Linux guys have to come up with their own implementation in order to avoid GPL violations. The LGPL wouldn't post as much of a problem. - mrsteveman1, on 05/18/2009, -0/+8Testing, and perhaps to ensure that if they HAD shipped a real install of ZFS in a later point release, the volumes it made would at least be readable on earlier copies of the OS. When SL comes out they might update the code so it will read the new volumes SL can create.
- InfiniteNothing, on 05/18/2009, -0/+7LOL @ naming your file system butterface
- ShyGuy91284, on 05/18/2009, -2/+9If only they would just pull the plug on Btrfs and GPL ZFS. I have nothing against Brtfs, but the *nix/BSD community is in SORE need of a commonly accessible filesystem. Between Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris, there really aren't any filesystems on all three platforms that have production-quality ports that can be used to share files among the three platforms other than FAT.
- TVarmy, on 05/18/2009, -0/+7It was a popular rumor for Leopard, saying it would be the default FS for all OSX installations. That's doubtful, because it'd make backward compatibility tougher, and many of the benefits of ZFS are better for machines with features mainly found in servers.
Apple has advertised that Snow Leopard will include ZFS support in the server version. No word on the desktop version or if it'll be the default. They also have a ZFS open source project with R/W support on their Mac OSX Forge site, but it has no official installer and lacks some pretty basic features, like the ability to delete files through the GUI. Still, it seems to be on track, and Apple often offers features from the server version of OSX in the desktop OSX later through free updates, like they did with IP over Firewire. - seltaeb4, on 05/18/2009, -1/+7At one time ZFS was rumored to be in the next point release of Mac OS X... not sure where that stands today.
- kurtwinter, on 05/18/2009, -1/+7None of these file systems can kill your wife, so why would anyone want to deploy them?
- kollross, on 05/18/2009, -2/+8exactly, I admire/understand RMS and what he's trying to accomplish. However there is a thin line between revolutionary and brilliant, and bat ***** crazy. Sometimes wonder if he's not actually shooting himself in the foot in some ways and preventing him from furthering his cause. Its one thing to become a free software evangelist, and condemning everything that doesn't meet his strict requirements of being free. In the case of condemning debian and *BSD I think he's doing that because he doesn't like giving people the option of using any priority software in the first place (which I find funny considering his whole stance has been on giving people freedom).
I tend to appreciate the BSD licenses over the GPL simply because it strikes me as being less political and religious. If I write the code and put it out there basically saying...here it is...have at it. As opposed to GPL it always feel like I'm being judged in some way (ala debian being criticized even though they are following the GPL to the letter of the law) - HonoredMule, on 05/18/2009, -0/+6How is GPL supposed to enable a developer to enjoy and propagate patent protection against patents for which he has no rights? CDDL can only offer patent protection because it's being offered through the CDDL by an actual rights holder (SUN, either through ownership or licensing agreements).
If you write your own code under the GPL, it has no connection whatsoever to SUN, the CDDL, or any of the patent protection they offer through it. - fotoman, on 05/18/2009, -0/+6I think someone forgot to pay their font tax and got stuck with that POS. I'm all for Sans Serifs fonts, but man, that thing gave me a headache....
- HonoredMule, on 05/18/2009, -0/+6Saying that is like offering a motive alone as your sole evidence. It just isn't..it's merely an indicator of non-zero probability.
- SigmaEcho, on 05/18/2009, -0/+5http://rorr.im/digg.com/linux_unix/linux_zfs_btrfs ...
- mrsteveman1, on 05/18/2009, -1/+6What about the patents? The CDDL grants patent coverage for that CDDL code, if you reimplement it yourself, you aren't covered.
- chrysalis, on 05/18/2009, -1/+6They both will get smoked by the Hammer filesystem and Tux3.
- Bloodwine, on 05/18/2009, -0/+5UFS is the closest thing to a universal filesystem.
I'm not sure if Solaris and FreeBSD's UFS implementations are compatible (probably now). Linux's ext2 filesystem is based on UFS.
They really should've worked on UFS becoming a portable OS instead of everyone adding their own extensions and forks of it. - kollross, on 05/18/2009, -3/+8Or maybe Sun developed a license that they felt would work best with its project. The BSD's don't have a problem with it, Mac doesn't have a problem with it.
Just because a license isn't compatible with GPL doesn't mean that was the intention. I don't understand the assumption that everything has to bend backwards to satify RMS. The GPL seems to have the most problems with everybody else's license so maybe its GPL that has the problem. - FKnight, on 05/18/2009, -5/+10@mrsteveman1
So...they intentionally don't want it ported to Linux but they don't care if it's ported to a BSD or MacOS? Dude, that's textbook tinfoil hat talk. - HonoredMule, on 05/19/2009, -1/+5Who said anything about "destroying" Linux or dastardly plans for sabotage? This is a simple case of having a competitive advantage over another major player in the same market and not wanting to share that advantage with said competitor, thus losing the opportunity to take a bite from its market share.
People running real businesses can't simply put their fingers in their ears and pretend Linux is just some hippie communist fad powered by unkempt basement dwellers. - sej7278, on 05/19/2009, -0/+4so reading an interview in a newspaper instead of a credible internet news source like slashdot makes it more true?
welcome to the 21st century where we pretty much have to rely on the internet for world news. - diggnidy, on 05/18/2009, -2/+6this is a TILTSOTF (topic i'd like to see on the frontpage)
- jdmulloy, on 05/18/2009, -1/+5I agree with the things you said about RMS. He cares about freedom, but only if it's the right type of freedom. Real freedom is being able to choose what ever software you want, not just what Microsoft, Apple or RMS tell you, you're allowed to use. Fact is most people just use computers to get things done, the only thing they care about is functionality. The only way to win over new users is to have technical superiority, most people won't change their behavior because someone lectures them on morality. Peta hasn't really stopped people from eating meat, Sarah Palin wasn't able to stop her teenage daughter from having sex and RMS isn't going to get people to stop using Flash on their Linux systems. Most people judge Linux on it's technical merit instead of it's moral merit. Red Hat makes a lot of their money from people running proprietary software, such as Oracle on Red Hat Linux, should they try to restrict their customers ability to do this to satisfy Richard Stallman's communist fantasy?
- mrsteveman1, on 05/19/2009, -0/+4Very interesting that many of you just projected the argument you'd like to have, on me :)
- nybble41, on 05/19/2009, -0/+4Quoting from Sum Yung Gai's comment on http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066:
"Danese Cooper, the (at the time) Sun manager who wrote the CDDL, also made it quite clear at DebConf that it was chosen specifically because it is GPL-incompatible. Here is a link to the video proving it (very long URL, BTW).
"Video times with Danese's speech is from:
http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meet ...
27 minutes 27 seconds through 28 minutes 24 seconds" - clip9, on 05/18/2009, -1/+4Tux3 is indeed extremely interesting. But it has a lot of development ahead of it, not just code but CS.
- nybble41, on 05/19/2009, -0/+3Quoting from Sum Yung Gai's comment on http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066:
"Danese Cooper, the (at the time) Sun manager who wrote the CDDL, also made it quite clear at DebConf that it was chosen specifically because it is GPL-incompatible. Here is a link to the video proving it (very long URL, BTW).
"Video times with Danese's speech is from:
http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meet ...
27 minutes 27 seconds through 28 minutes 24 seconds" - mrsteveman1, on 05/18/2009, -3/+6"So...they intentionally don't want it ported to Linux but they don't care if it's ported to a BSD or MacOS? Dude, that's textbook tinfoil hat talk."
Yea, you don't know what you're talking about. MacOS doesn't compete with ANYTHING Sun makes.
Linux is eating the server market alive however. - moulinneuf, on 05/18/2009, -4/+6If Oracle is smart they will make ZFS GPL and will sell service/support for it. This way they get
back PAID contribution of code and usage report By the GNU/Linux commercial vendors like
Red Hat , Novell , Mandriva , Canonical.
IF the ZFS strategy had worked , SUN would still be a viable company making millions if not billions.
Learn from the past or suffer the same consequence. - ShyGuy91284, on 05/20/2009, -0/+2I had to look into it since I was doing some OS changing on my home server, and they aren't. Neither is the FreeBSD and Solaris ZFS implementation at this point in time though to be fair, but it sounds like that's due to the experimental nature of the FreeBSD version.
- mdmcgee, on 05/18/2009, -3/+5So, when YOU re-implement it do it using CDDL or doesn't GPL V 3 offer patent protection?
Sun opensourced it, Sun made the standards available. They made it so no-one can sue over patents for products originally licensed under CDDL without losing the rights to use it so we can feel rather certain they aren't going to sue over you re-implementing ZFS.
When in doubt visit your friendly neighborhood lawyer. - inactive, on 05/18/2009, -1/+3I still hold out BFS will come back someday...
*sniff* I am in denial. - Culyt, on 05/20/2009, -0/+2Everything Sun released was CDDL I don't see why ZFS would have been any different.
Also its more that the GPL is incompatible with the CDDL rather than the other way around. The GPL is the one with all the clauses saying you can't add nonGPL compatible code. - pak314, on 05/18/2009, -1/+2What exactly is the purpose of a read only zfs? Its not like a FAT filesystem or ISO which is ubiquitous. I doubt there are many Mac users how have a large collection of ZFS filesystem to read from.
- InorganicMatter, on 05/18/2009, -6/+7Love how the inability to use ZFS is everyone's fault except Linux's.
Hate to tell you guys this, it's the that's GPL sucking here, not Sun. - djdicbob, on 05/18/2009, -2/+3Sun does make millions of dollars. Their profit margins suffered because Sun spent their profits on R&D, instead of doing R&D in field and sending you bricks!
- JohnFlux, on 05/26/2009, -0/+1
> It would surely not take as long as 2 years to integrate ZFS in the kernel.
Lol. It would take 2 years at least just to get it relicensed, let alone any coding. - pweltz, on 05/19/2009, -0/+1What a bad article. Sorry it is.
- It would surely not take as long as 2 years to integrate ZFS in the kernel.
- I don't think it would hurt the "pride" of the open-source community to get ZFS GPL.
I think every participation is welcome. The goal is to have open-source and free softwares that avoid vendor lock-ins and keep our freedom to use them, correct them, make them evolve.
Open-office, Firefox and many other came from closed source. - JohnFlux, on 05/26/2009, -0/+1I don't buy it. If ilnux was under a different license, then Oracle would have simply put ZFS under a new license that would be incompatible with that new license. Oracle _purposefully_ chose a license incompatible with whatever license Linux uses.
- FKnight, on 05/18/2009, -4/+5@mrsteveman1
Here's what I see. Every direction one turns, it's "Microsoft's doing this" or "Sun is doing that" or "[insert some non-GPL vendor] is doing that" -- nothing but conspiracy theories about how every commercial vendor is "out to get Linux" and how everyone's business model is designed specifically around "destroying Linux" and that there's guys in smoked filled rooms coming up with licensing strategies where the top line on every agenda is "at all costs, even if someone dies, this must be incompatible with the GPL so as to destroy Linux."
The thought that there could be some other business reason, besides "destroying Linux" *never enters into your mind* because "destroying Linux", to you, is the only possible motivation any business has to make any decision whatsoever, even down to the color of their loading dock doors. - HonoredMule, on 05/18/2009, -3/+4That argument makes perfect sense to me. Linux is the big competitor in the server market. If you're running x86 hardware and it's not the back end to your corporate infrastructure--in which case you're probably neck-deep in Microsoft's world--then you're probably running at least a majority of servers with Linux. Macs and BSDs just aren't competitors, so who cares if they can use it?
But SUN wants (or wanted) to be running data centers with databases and web servers, and they primarily have 3 big selling points: DTrace, Containers, and ZFS. Without licensing conflicts, Linux could probably snatch at least 2 of those features in short order, leaving little incentive for anyone to endure the agony of switching platforms.
I'm not saying that intentionally making the CDDL incompatible with the GPL is definitely what they did, but it's not at all a far-fetched supposition, let alone "tinfoil hat talk." - ethana2, on 05/18/2009, -3/+3Once I get my ext4 migration done this october, those companies can do what they want. Law of diminishing returns and whatnot.
- OpenStandards, on 05/24/2009, -0/+0I have not compared the coding styles between what linux uses and how ZFS is written but surely they are going to be different, if you tried to add it to the mainline..... linus would tell you to rewrite it to standards, then if stupid mistakes are made in the programming he'll take the piss.
Linus is someone I admire hes a genius and knows it not only that but he'll show you up not because hes an ***** but because he can.
Firefox was born from phoenix, the source came from netscape but it was so ***** that they ended up rewritting the app. - masonmark, on 05/19/2009, -2/+2I read it on the Internet! That makes it a fact!
- sej7278, on 05/18/2009, -4/+4I'm pretty sure I've read on Slashdot and interview with some woman from Sun - think it was the ZFS project lead, who confirmed the point that CDDL was chosen to stop Linux getting ZFS.
Just googled it and there are some of Sun's ZFS developers confirming that.
So what's everyone arguing about - its a fact. So we concentrate on Btrfs, its a shame we couldn't have a Solaris/Mac/BSD +Linux filesystem so we could tell Microsoft where to stick its FAT, but there you go, nice one Sun.
I partially agree that the GPL is holding Linux' use back a bit - either that or companies just violate the license and hope they don't get caught, or like companies I've worked for in the past - just gone for a BSD solution irrespective of if there's better GPL software, just to get out of licensing issues.
Big business is not concerned with freedom of speech and all of our goals, its all about how much software they can get for $0 without having to give anything back in return. -
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is