141–148 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
New CDDL code outside of Oracle is under CDDLv1 only to prevent them from doing as they please with the license terms.
But ZFS is not under that other license (which might be called CDDLv1, but that's confusing). I don't get why new software uses the CDDL over the MPL if you want "file based copyleft". If you want copyleft, just use the GPL.
I personally feel that we should all hop off the ZFS (on Linux) hype train and consider a few points. Currently ZoL is being developed by two people, and it works by creating a translation layer into the Linux kernel API. The bug list is enormous (much bigger than btrfs), and there isn't enough experience with the codebase by Linux kernel developers. That's ignoring the potential legal issues. No other ZFS port has t…
https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/commits/master
I will admit that my contribution activity has been low as of late, but it will pick up again soon. As for the bug list, that is because basically all distribution problems get sent there and duplicates are not closed until it is proven that they are duplicates. There is no such transparency with other filesystems' bug tracking. Redhat receives plenty of bug reports through Fedora that they happily close if not solved by EOL.
As for btrfs, one of the btrfs developers claimed that ZFS has 5 times the development resources of btrfs:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11749477
As for lawsuit fears, the fact is that using any software at all puts you at risk of a lawsuit. Whether or not the plaintiff has a legitimate case is a separate matter. However, if we consider the prospect of Oracle having a case against those using btrfs or ZFS, btrfs would be at higher risk. The CDDL provides an implicit patent grant while the GPLv2 does not. Any ZFS patents that are applicable to btrfs that Oracle accquired from Sun could be used against those using btrfs. The repercussions for Oracle would be huge, but if we are discussing about the potential for legal issues with Oracle, then btrfs is at the greatest risk.
From what I know of the internals of the two, btrfs has far more problems. This shows some of the problems on an enterprise distribution:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11749010
The idea that performance can be so horrible that the system might as well have deadlocked is a severe problem. The ENOSPC issues from internal fragmentation is another severe problem. Then there is the lack of backports. I could continue, but I see no need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that the risk is mostly the other way around: it infringes Linux' GPL license (see https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ ). Would Oracle have grounds to sue as a Linux copyright holder? They have successfully made API copyrightable, so they clearly have competent lawyers.
There are a few people who think that. There are plenty of others who do not. Those in charge of reviewing licensing in Linux distributions that have adopted it are generally of the opinion that it is okay, especially those in charge of Sabayon and Ubuntu. Gentoo came to similar conclusions long before them (>4 years before Ubuntu) and ships it in binary form on the LiveDVD. At this point, there are at least a few do…
And here's to hoping that ZFS becomes so widespread that Oracle themselves end up redistributing it in their version of Linux, like they did with DTrace.
I've been working with virtual machines in production and development for well over a decade now and a lot of what works via ZFS in this article works very similarly to how it would work we used AWS or VMware style snapshots. In fact, ZFS snapshots are only so helpful if you make complicated changes across multiple ZFS volumes, for example, that require some more transactional style rollbacks. In such scenarios, it m…
VMware snapshots are NOT like ZFS snapshots. VMWare snapshots are extremely heavy an will have massive performance impact if left around for an extended period of time for any I/O sensitive VM. ZFS snapshots are essentially 0-overhead from a performance perspective, and function in a very different manner.
On the other hand, recursive snapshots in ZFS are really slick and can achieve 90%+ of what people typically want from VMware-based snapshots when it comes to any non-Windows OS if there's a little room for not needing to care about indirect changes required in rollbacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okey, correction then, if you are not Sun/Oracle (and most people aren't) and create an identical copy of CDDL and call it "bobs license", then BL and CDDL is incompatible because of the conditions in the otherwise identical licenses. Point being, the condition that create the incompatibility between CDDL and GPL is that both want their license to be used when distributing. Remove that condition from either license,…
The CDDL's restriction is only in the files containing the code. The GPL's restriction is on all files within a derived work, whether they contain GPL code or not.
If CDDL did not have their condition that source code is only made available under CDDL license, then the incompatibility would not exist. If GPL had similar loophole as CDDL and permitted modifications to be under different license if they are put as a separate file node in the file system, then the two permissions would permit a single project to include software under both licenses. I doubt CDDL will receive such update, and there is already LGPL.
The loophole is quite interesting from a legal point of view. Would a filesystem based on a database be fine? The computer would be storing all the code in a single file, but the presentation would look like that file is actually two different ones. Same goes with a gz file and "virtual" file systems, that present data inside as if it were separated files on the disk. What about a container image where a single work has source code under CDDL and source code under some other license?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CDDL's restriction is only in the files containing the code. The GPL's restriction is on all files within a derived work, whether they contain GPL code or not.
Is you argument that CDDL condition is somehow smaller in scope than GPL? GPLv3 also cover anti-DRM clauses, but that doesn't make it more or less compatible with CDDL requirement that source code is made available only under CDDL license. If CDDL did not have their condition that source code is only made available under CDDL license, then the incompatibility would not exist. If GPL had similar loophole as CDDL and p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VMware snapshots are NOT like ZFS snapshots. VMWare snapshots are extremely heavy an will have massive performance impact if left around for an extended period of time for any I/O sensitive VM. ZFS snapshots are essentially 0-overhead from a performance perspective, and function in a very different manner.
I'm aware of how both work (I had a VCP410 cert and happily run ZFS with many snapshots on rotation at home), but IMO the uses are similar enough for the purposes explored in the article despite the significant differences in practice and felt that a traditional alternative should be mentioned. Additionally, VMware-based snapshots can be performed SAN-side and integrated with VAAI that can expect similar performance…