Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > Sorry but your reply is completely misleading as the people who claim that
> > there is a legal problem with having ZFS in the Linux kernel would of course
> > also claim that Reiserfs cannot be in the FreeBSD kernel.
>
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Sorry but your reply is completely misleading as the people who claim that
there is a legal problem with having ZFS in the Linux kernel would of course
also claim that Reiserfs cannot be in the FreeBSD kernel.
It seems that it is a license violation
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2010-Jun-11 17:41:38 +0800, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> >PP.S.: Did you know that FreeBSD _includes_ the GPLd Reiserfs in the FreeBSD
> >kernel since a while and that nobody did complain about this, see e.g.:
> >
> >http://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/8/sys/gnu/fs/reiser
On 2010-Jun-11 17:41:38 +0800, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
>PP.S.: Did you know that FreeBSD _includes_ the GPLd Reiserfs in the FreeBSD
>kernel since a while and that nobody did complain about this, see e.g.:
>
>http://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/8/sys/gnu/fs/reiserfs/
That is completely irrelevant
On 6/12/2010 1:44 PM, andrew wrote:
On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag
Agarwal wrote:
We at KQInfotech, initially started on an
independent port of ZFS to linux.
When we posted our prog
> On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag
> Agarwal wrote:
> >
> >> We at KQInfotech, initially started on an
> independent port of ZFS to linux.
> >> When we posted our progress about port last year,
> then we came to know about
> >>
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
Op Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:00:39 +0200 schreef Joerg Schilling
:
The main problem with GPL related license debates seems to be that
very few people did read the GPL license text.
Or simply do not want to and just believe what they have been told to be
Op Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:00:39 +0200 schreef Joerg Schilling
:
The main problem with GPL related license debates seems to be that
very few people did read the GPL license text.
Or simply do not want to and just believe what they have been told to be
the truth.
If things are told often enough
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> I am really sad to hear you saying these things since if it was all
> actually true, then Linux, *BSD, and Solaris distributions could not
> legally exist. Thankfully, only part of the above is true.
If linking of independent works would create something else than a
(p
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Freddie Cash wrote:
For the record, the following paragraph was incorrectly quoted by Bob. This
paragraph was originally
It would not have been incorrectly quoted
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Freddie Cash wrote:
>
>>
>>
For the record, the following paragraph was incorrectly quoted by Bob. This
paragraph was originally written by Erik Trimble:
> I don't mean to be a PITA, b
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Freddie Cash wrote:
I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that someone lawyerly
has had the appropriate discussions with the porting team about how
linking against the GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has
to be GPL-compatible. It doesn't matter if you di
> "gd" == Garrett D'Amore writes:
gd> There are numerous people in the community that have indicated
gd> that they believe that such linking creates a *derivative*
gd> work. Donald Becker has made this claim rather forcefully.
yes, I think he has a point. The reality is, as lon
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> You are sadly mistaken.
>
> From GNU.org on license compatibilities:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
>
> Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0
> This is a free software license. It has
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to
>>> linux.
>>> When we posted our progress abo
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Kyle McDonald wrote:
If the developers distribute source code, which is then compiled and
linked to the GPL code by the *end-user* then there are no issues, since
the person combining the 2 codebases is not distributing the combined
work further.
This is absolutely always
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Jason King wrote:
Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is GPL
licensed, but I don't think that's the case.
As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no legal
problem with putting the CDDLd original
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:41 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I am aware of (and this are many) explain, linking
> against an independent work creates a collective work and no
> derivative work.
> The GPL would only hit if a derivative work was created but even under
> US
> Copyright law, a deriva
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/11/2010 12:32 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to
>>> linux.
>
Alex Blewitt wrote:
> The GPL doesn't prevent you doing things. However, it does withdraw
> the agreement that you are permitted to copy someone else's work if
> you do those things. So whilst one can compile and link code together,
> you may not have the rights to use other's code without
Erik Trimble wrote:
> I don't want to restart something here on this list - I just wanted to
> make sure that the original developers understood that there are very
> possibly issues using CDDL code in conjunction with GPL'd code. If they
> are indeed using OpenSolaris ZFS code, then they at
On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alex Blewitt wrote:
On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Jason King wrote:
Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is
GPL
licensed, but I don't think that's the case.
As explained in depth in a previ
On 6/11/2010 3:03 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Alex Blewitt wrote:
On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no
legal
problem with putting the CDDLd original ZFS implementation into the
Linux
k
Alex Blewitt wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Jason King wrote:
> >
> >> Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is
> >> GPL
> >> licensed, but I don't think that's the case.
> >
> > As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is a
On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Jason King wrote:
Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is
GPL
licensed, but I don't think that's the case.
As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no
legal
problem with putting the CDDL
Jason King wrote:
> Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is GPL
> licensed, but I don't think that's the case.
As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no legal
problem with putting the CDDLd original ZFS implementation into the Linux
kernel.
Erik Trimble wrote:
> I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that someone lawyerly has had the
> appropriate discussions with the porting team about how linking against the
> GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be GPL-compatible. It
> doesn't matter if you distribute it ou
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to
>>> linux.
>>> When we posted our progress
I'm very excited. Throw some code up on github as soon as you are able. I'm
sure there are plenty of people (me) that would like to help test it out. I've
already been playing around with ZFS using zvol on Fedora 12. I would love to
have a ZPL, no matter how experimental.
--
This message posted
On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal wrote:
We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to linux.
When we posted our progress about port last year, then we came to know about
the work on LLNL port. Since
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal wrote:
> We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to linux.
> When we posted our progress about port last year, then we came to know about
> the work on LLNL port. Since then we started working on to re-base our
> changing on
Hi Brandon,
Thanks for providing update on this.
We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to linux.
When we posted our progress about port last year, then we came to know about
the work on LLNL port. Since then we started working on to re-base our
changing on top Brian's
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> This viedo is not interesting, it is wrong.
> Danese Cooper claims incorrect things and her claims have already been
> verified wrong by Simon Phipps.
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=55013#55008
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>Jörg
I see it's a pretty
Hillel Lubman wrote:
> A very interesting video from DebConf, which addresses CDDL and GPL
> incompatibility issues, and some original reasoning behind CDDL usage:
>
> http://caesar.acc.umu.se/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipp
A very interesting video from DebConf, which addresses CDDL and GPL
incompatibility issues, and some original reasoning behind CDDL usage:
http://caesar.acc.umu.se/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg
--
> Native ZFS for Linux
Very good to see that there is such effort in progress.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Fredrich Maney wrote:
> Not to be too harsh, but as long as you can't mount filesystems, it
> seems to just be hype/vaporware to me.
It's a big step in the right direction.
You can still use zvols to create ext3 filesystems, and use the zpool
for disk management a
Thanks for posting this, but these two sentences seem to contradict each other:
"Employees of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have ported
Sun's/Oracle's ZFS natively to Linux."
"The ZFS Posix Layer has not been implemented yet, therefore mounting
file systems is not yet possible"
Not to b
http://www.osnews.com/story/23416/Native_ZFS_Port_for_Linux
Native ZFS Port for Linux
posted by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 10:15 UTC, submitted by kragil
Employees of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have ported
Sun's/Oracle's ZFS natively to Linux. Linux already had a ZFS port in
u
39 matches
Mail list logo
