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 incompatible features
since pool version 28 in each, so they're esse
;>>>
>>>> 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 Linu
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
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 betw
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
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
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
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
gt; academic and government purposes. The US Department of Energy
>>> commissioned them to port ZFS to Linux quite a long time ago[0], which
>>> is the foundation of the current ZFS on Linux codebase.
>> and they build a large, genral purpose, linux distribution?
> D
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/eve
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
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
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
tory 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 Linux quite a long time ago[0], which
is the foundation of the current ZFS on Linux codebase.
Please do som
vermore"?
>>>
>>
>> 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
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
bly would be a good idea to get a determination from
>>> the legal team
>>
>>
>> who is "Lawrence Livermore"?
>>
>
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is an organization founded by
> the University of California to do research and development for
&g
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
of Energy
>> commissioned them to port ZFS to Linux quite a long time ago[0], which
>> is the foundation of the current ZFS on Linux codebase.
>
> and they build a large, genral purpose, linux distribution?
Doubtless it doesn't count, but an old version of the LLNL HPC-orien
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
elopment for
academic and government purposes. The US Department of Energy
commissioned them to port ZFS to Linux quite a long time ago[0], which
is the foundation of the current ZFS on Linux codebase.
and they build a large, genral purpose, linux distribution?
Please do some research before actual
;
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 Linux quite a long time ago[0], which
is the foundation of the current ZF
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
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
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
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
that was preventing
> the inclusion in Fedora, but apparently that isn't true:
> http://warpmech.com/?news=myth-busting-series-zfs-on-linux-has-license-problems
As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from a CTO
who's trying to sell me the thing they're
7;t true:
http://warpmech.com/?news=myth-busting-series-zfs-on-linux-has-license-problems
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
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
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
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,
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
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 is there a
possibility that Fedora could add support/packages as well?
Regards,
Zach #aikidouke
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproj
54 matches
Mail list logo
