Re: ZFS on linux

Am 16.01.2016 um 22:19 schrieb Neal Gompa: On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 16.01.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Neal Gompa: On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Does Oracle include ZFS in thei

Re: ZFS on linux

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 16.01.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Neal Gompa: >> >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga >>> wrote: Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default? >

Re: ZFS on linux

Am 16.01.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Neal Gompa: On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default? No, and as far as I know they don't contribute to ZFS on Linux. There is a distinctio

Re: ZFS on linux

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga > wrote: >> Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default? > > No, and as far as I know they don't contribute to ZFS on Linux. There > is a distinction between ZFS and OpenZFS that's kinda

Re: ZFS on linux

Am 16.01.2016 um 20:51 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kevin Fenzi mailto:ke...@scrye.com>> wrote: I can't image anyone misinterpreting my statement that way, but yes, I was not trying to suggest anything anyone else does is legal or not, simply that any in

Re: ZFS on linux

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default? No, and as far as I know they don't contribute to ZFS on Linux. There is a distinction between ZFS and OpenZFS that's kinda important. ZFS on Linux is based on OpenZFS, not ZFS. There're

Re: ZFS on linux

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > I can't image anyone misinterpreting my statement that way, but yes, I > was not trying to suggest anything anyone else does is legal or not, > simply that any inclusion in Fedora would need approval of Fedora legal > and continuing to post a

Re: ZFS on linux

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 10:43:12 -0800 "Gerald B. Cox" wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > The benchmark if it's legal to include something in Fedora is > > what Fedora Legal says. > > > > I basically would agree with everything you stated, except I would > change

Re: ZFS on linux

On 14/01/16 02:28 PM, Dave Love wrote: > Reindl Harald writes: > who is "Lawrence Livermore"? >>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is an organization founded by >>> the University of California to do research and development for >>> academic and government purposes. The US Department of

Re: ZFS on linux

Am 16.01.2016 um 19:43 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Fenzi mailto:ke...@scrye.com>> wrote: The benchmark if it's legal to include something in Fedora is what Fedora Legal says. I basically would agree with everything you stated, except I would change

Re: ZFS on linux

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > The benchmark if it's legal to include something in Fedora is > what Fedora Legal says. > I basically would agree with everything you stated, except I would change the sentence to read: "The benchmark if it's permissible..." Fedora has it's

Re: ZFS on linux

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 10:38:42 -0500 Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Kofler > wrote: > > Gerald B. Cox wrote: > >> Fedora has it's own rules and can ship or not ship what they > >> want. I'm perfectly fine with that. As I previously stated, IMO > >> BTRFS is a much

Re: ZFS on linux

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Gerald B. Cox wrote: >>> Fedora has it's own rules and can ship or not ship what they want. I'm >>> perfectly fine with that. As I previously stated, IMO BTRFS is a much >>> better choi

Re: ZFS on linux

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> Fedora has it's own rules and can ship or not ship what they want. I'm >> perfectly fine with that. As I previously stated, IMO BTRFS is a much >> better choice. My point was simply that I don't believe saying it wo

Re: ZFS on linux

Gerald B. Cox wrote: > Fedora has it's own rules and can ship or not ship what they want. I'm > perfectly fine with that. As I previously stated, IMO BTRFS is a much > better choice. My point was simply that I don't believe saying it would > be a GPL violation to include ZFS in a Linux distribut

Re: ZFS on linux

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > It depends on exactly what FSF knows and how Canonical is planning to do > this. It is not safe to assume FSF is even aware of all the details here. > If you want FSF's opinion, they have a public contact address for > licensing questions

Re: ZFS on linux

Hi On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Kevin, I don't believe that is the case in this instance. No one is > talking about mixing code. If you do have something however specifically > regarding the FSF stance on > ZFS, I'd like to read it - I've searched and haven't been able

Re: ZFS on linux

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Right. See also: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items#cdrtools > > > for another case where an upstream attempted mixing GPL and CDDL code, and > Red Hat Legal's and the FSF's stance on it. > Kevin, I don't believe that is the ca

Re: ZFS on linux

Reindl Harald wrote: > a standalone software with CDDL is a different topic [snip] > no, but when you link that incompatible code with the kernel which is > GPLv2 code it's a complete different topic Right. See also: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items#cdrtools for another case where an

Re: ZFS on linux

ZFS on Linux: Copyright and Licensing Issues (pdf created april 2013) This was written by a lawyer, but the disclaimer is this is a cursory evaluation, not legal advice. http://www.rtt-law.com/public/files/docs/Williams%20-%20Software%20copyrights%20white%20paper.pdf But I still predict bigger obs

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > LLNL is still actively involved in the ZFS on Linux project, so they > are still doing something with it. > Correct, and that can be discovered with a Google search - which found this: *https://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/sli

Re: ZFS on linux

On 01/14/2016 07:29 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: C - Find maintainers ( I would volunteer - I'd have to learn packaging) > >I'd certainly be willing to assist if it were allowed. I will be honest and say I do not foresee this being allowed in an official capacity. People are better off using the exis

Re: ZFS on linux

Stephen John Smoogen writes: > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a US Government/Department > of Energy laboratory that UC Berkeley has a hand in managing. It was > not founded by the University of California but came out of the post > Manhatten project to build the hydrogen bomb. The US

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Zach Villers wrote: >> Well - If there was to be a plan, it would have to start with RH legal >> making that determination would it not? >> >> Could FESCO or the other council (sorry it escapes me ATM) take this

Re: ZFS on linux

Am 15.01.2016 um 01:07 schrieb Neal Gompa: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On 14 January 2016 at 12:20, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: who is "Lawrence Livermore"? Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is an organiz

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 14 January 2016 at 12:20, Neal Gompa wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Reindl Harald >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Am 14.01.2016 um 19:57 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham >>>

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Zach Villers wrote: > Well - If there was to be a plan, it would have to start with RH legal > making that determination would it not? > > Could FESCO or the other council (sorry it escapes me ATM) take this up as a > meeting item? Is it worth presenting for a lega

Re: ZFS on linux

On 14 January 2016 at 12:20, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> >> Am 14.01.2016 um 19:57 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham >> > wrote: >>> >>> As a rule, I try not to take leg

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Zach Villers wrote: > Well - If there was to be a plan, it would have to start with RH legal > making that determination would it not? > > Could FESCO or the other council (sorry it escapes me ATM) take this up as a > meeting item? Is it worth presenting for a lega

Re: ZFS on linux

Reindl Harald writes: >>> who is "Lawrence Livermore"? >> >> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is an organization founded by >> the University of California to do research and development for >> academic and government purposes. The US Department of Energy >> commissioned them to port ZFS to

Re: ZFS on linux

Zach Villers writes: > I understand. My thought was, that there seems to be a push to add support > in Debian and Ubuntu. Would it now be possible/make sense to create maybe a > nodebug kernel package based on a stable kernel supported by ZFS and > zfs/spl packages maybe even as a copr repo? Wha

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 05:07:57PM -0500, Zach Villers wrote: > A - determine with we were going to start building a kernel with nodebug > turned off Why? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: ZFS on linux

Well - If there was to be a plan, it would have to start with RH legal making that determination would it not? Could FESCO or the other council (sorry it escapes me ATM) take this up as a meeting item? Is it worth presenting for a legal determination? In my mind, if it was approved by legal we wo

Re: ZFS on linux

> On 14 Jan 2016, at 11:39, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:24 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> likely i did much more research than you can even imagine long >>> before >>> that thread started >> >> I find this chal

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:24 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: >> likely i did much more research than you can even imagine long >> before >> that thread started > > I find this challenging to believe. > >> CDDL is incompatible with GPLv2 - peri

Re: ZFS on linux

I think someone needs to agree to become the maintainer for such a package, correct? Who's willing to do this? I haven't tested ZoL on my UEFI+Secure Boot NUC yet, but my expectation is that this kernel module isn't going to be signed by anything trusted, so it'd fail to load. If that's true, ther

Re: ZFS on linux

Am 14.01.2016 um 20:35 schrieb Michael Catanzaro: On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:24 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: likely i did much more research than you can even imagine long before that thread started I find this challenging to believe. i don't care what you believe CDDL is incompatible with

Re: ZFS on linux

Am 14.01.2016 um 20:34 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Reindl Harald mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote: ZFS cannot be included in the GPL-licensed Linux kernel, because it is licensed under the GPL-incompatible CDDL Harald, you missed the point you mi

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:24 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > likely i did much more research than you can even imagine long > before  > that thread started I find this challenging to believe. > CDDL is incompatible with GPLv2 - period Did you read the web site at all? The argument is that it can be

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > ZFS cannot be included in the GPL-licensed Linux kernel, because it is > licensed under the GPL-incompatible CDDL Harald, you missed the point. We all understand it cannot be included in the kernel - we're talking about whether or not

Re: ZFS on linux

Am 14.01.2016 um 19:45 schrieb Bill Nottingham: Bill, your maildomain is burned and the only reason that your mails appear here is there the mailing list is whitelisted based on SPF 1.5 URIBL_SBL_A Contains URL's A record listed in the SBL blocklist [URIs: splat.cc] 1.5 URIBL_SBL Contains

Re: ZFS on linux

Am 14.01.2016 um 20:20 schrieb Neal Gompa: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 14.01.2016 um 19:57 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham mailto:nott...@splat.cc>> wrote: As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretatio

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 14.01.2016 um 19:57 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: >> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham > > wrote: >> >> As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from a >> CTO >> who's tr

Re: ZFS on linux

Am 14.01.2016 um 20:15 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Gerald B. Cox mailto:gb...@bzb.us>> wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham mailto:nott...@splat.cc>> wrote: As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham > wrote: > >> As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from a CTO >> who's trying to sell me the thing they're talking about the licensing of. >> >> We certainly could s

Re: ZFS on linux

Am 14.01.2016 um 19:57 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham mailto:nott...@splat.cc>> wrote: As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from a CTO who's trying to sell me the thing they're talking about the licensing of. We

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from a CTO > who's trying to sell me the thing they're talking about the licensing of. > > We certainly could send that interpretation of CDDL/GPL and the kernel to > the > lega

Re: ZFS on linux

Gerald B. Cox (gb...@bzb.us) said: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > > > > Here is a simple if then for figuring out how ZFS support may ever get > > into Fedora: > > > I originally believed it was simply a licensing issue that was preventing > the inclusion

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Here is a simple if then for figuring out how ZFS support may ever get > into Fedora: I originally believed it was simply a licensing issue that was preventing the inclusion in Fedora, but apparently that isn't true: http://warpme

Re: ZFS on linux

Thanks Smooge/Florian. I respect your opinions, thoughts, and explanations. Regards. On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 14 January 2016 at 08:58, Zach Villers wrote: > > I understand. My thought was, that there seems to be a push to add > support > > in Debian a

Re: ZFS on linux

On 14 January 2016 at 08:58, Zach Villers wrote: > I understand. My thought was, that there seems to be a push to add support > in Debian and Ubuntu. Would it now be possible/make sense to create maybe a > nodebug kernel package based on a stable kernel supported by ZFS and zfs/spl > packages mayb

Re: ZFS on linux

I understand. My thought was, that there seems to be a push to add support in Debian and Ubuntu. Would it now be possible/make sense to create maybe a nodebug kernel package based on a stable kernel supported by ZFS and zfs/spl packages maybe even as a copr repo? On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:04 AM,

Re: ZFS on linux

On 01/14/2016 03:26 PM, Zach Villers wrote: > Now that Debian has added zfs support to their experimental branch; > https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/zfs-linux_0.6.4.2-1.html I don't know where you got this information. If a package is in NEW, it is not yet part of Debian. In fact, it means that