kerneltrap.org — A recent discussion on the lkml examined the possibility of a Linux implementation of Sun's ZFS. It was pointed out that the file system is released under the GPL-incompatible CDDL, and that Sun has filed numerous patents to prevent ZFS from being reverse engineered. Max Yudin pointed out, "according to Jeff Bonwick's blog Sun issued 56 patents ..
Apr 21, 2007 View in Crawl 4
urusaiApr 21, 2007
Didn't Sun GPL Java? I thought they were playing ball with Linux. Sun should give up on Solaris and GPL all their goodies; instead of watching their market dry up, they could be big in an expanding market.
jopsenApr 21, 2007
I agree with wonderchemist...I don't see why patents should block an GPL reimplementation... besides there's still many places in the FREE world where software patents doesn't exist...
anastropheApr 21, 2007
i'm getting goosebumps from shadenfreude!
braininajarApr 21, 2007
The OpenSolaris community is quite happy with our mozilla/apache/mit type license. Really, all it is GPL restricted to files. Lets take zfs for instance. You can take zfs.c from solaris, and put it anywhere you like, but you have to share zfs.c, including any changes, just like the GPL. Where the two of them differ is that if you take say, ext3fs.c and put it somewhere else ( like inside solaris ), you are infringing the license if the rest of the code in the project isn't GPL. Because Linux is GPL, you can't add things under different licenses in it without that code being GPL too ( or BSD, since you can do whatever you want with that ). That's why linux can't take solaris' ZFS implimentation, but OSX and FreeBSD can.And the solaris market isn't drying up, people are migrating /to/ solaris & OpenSolaris since the open-sourcing of it
prammyApr 21, 2007
Hmm wasn't sun thinking about licensing Solaris under GPLv3 at some point? What happens when they do that? Wouldn't ZFS become GPL if they distribute OpenSolaris under GPLv3 ?
braininajarApr 21, 2007
No, they asked the community, and it was pretty undeniably rejected. There's no benefit to GPL'ing solaris, and a lot of downsides. Sun is liable to piss off a substantial majority of the OSol community by even bringing up GPL again.Quite aside from that, GPLv3 Solaris wouldn't help Linux in the slightest, since Linux is a GPLv2 project, and the two licenses aren't compatible. Linus also didn't have his contributors sign the copyright over, so switching Linux's license would involve a hell of a lot of work, either tracking down old developers who may or may not be dead ( or in prison for killing their wife ), or reimplementing a bunch of stuff. Quite a bit of work just to be able to pillage code from another open-source project
gmorganApr 21, 2007
@mortrekThe CDDL and GPL only cover code, they are not patent licenses. You could make a GPL implementation that is entirely your original work and the CDDL wouldn't mean squat. The only issues are that it has clear layer violations so is basically a hack and that there may be patents. Personally I think they are more concerned about the fact it would screw over the Linux architecture. If you need to read existing ZFS partitions there is the FUSE driver but I doubt we will ever see it native in Linux unless they change the entire FS architecture.
teatimegrommitApr 21, 2007
"Sun has filed numerous patents to prevent ZFS from being reverse engineered"That has got to be the silliest most nonsensical sentence I've read all week! The point of a patent is to tell everyone EXACTLY HOW YOU DID IT. Thus, you don't NEED to reverse engineer it because you've got instructions right before you! Only the heir to the kingdom of fools would sue because someone "reverse engineered" a patented device. In fact, failure to be able to figure out how a patented device works can be an argument for invalidating the patent in court!A more precise statement would be "Sun has filed numerous patents to control who can use ZFS." That's what a patent is for. It isn't to obscure the technology, it is an agreement "we tell society how we did it, in exchange society grants us exclusive right to profit for a limited time from the use of the technology."
aristotle0dudeApr 22, 2007
Who cares if it's not GPL'ed. It is open sourced which means the source is available. The GPL is becoming a hindrance to innovation and interoperability in the same way that the open source advocates say software patents stifle innovation and interoperability.If you want to play with others, don't share your code with an encumbered and viral license like the GPL. The GPL version 3 makes these problems even worse.Ironic isn't it? Open source was supposed to prevent lock in/promote interoperability and now the GPL is causing lock in into Linux and it is locking out innovative software.