1 |
On 26/08/2013 23:37, Joerg Schilling wrote: |
2 |
> Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:30:05 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>>> The licensing conflict means that would not be possible. You have the |
7 |
>>>> install the kernel source and then merge in the ZFS source yourself, |
8 |
>>>> it can't be done for you and distributed. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> Why do you believe this? |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> ZFS id doubtlessly an own "work" independent from the rest of the Linux |
13 |
>>> kernel and for this reason, adding ZFS just creates a collective work |
14 |
>>> that is not affected by the GPL. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> But the CCDL licence of ZFS precludes its being distributed with the |
17 |
>> kernel. At least, that's how I understand it and the fact that no distro |
18 |
>> distributes a ZFS-enabled kernel makes me believe it is true. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Did you ever read the CDDL? |
21 |
> |
22 |
> People who believe that there is a problem use a wrong interpretation of the |
23 |
> GPL. The CDDL definitely does not prevent combinations with other software. |
24 |
|
25 |
The problem is not with CDDL, the problem is with the GPL. |
26 |
|
27 |
ZFS in the kernel requires that ZFS as shipped be relicensed as GPL, it |
28 |
forms a derivative work of the kernel. No external license can change |
29 |
the terms of the GPL. |
30 |
|
31 |
Admittedly this gets murky due to XFS. |
32 |
|
33 |
But the clincher would appear to be that Oracle own ZFS and also |
34 |
distribute a branded RedHat derivative distro. To the best of my |
35 |
knowledge Oracle themselves do not ship a ZFS-enabled kernel. Surely, as |
36 |
the owners of the code and with a large dev team, Oracle themselves |
37 |
could solve this issue by doing just that? But they haven't done so. |
38 |
|
39 |
Especially as ZFS is production-ready today whereas the competing btrfs |
40 |
is not. |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Alan McKinnon |
44 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |