On May 6, 2008, at 14:59, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> By releasing this bit of code to Grub under the GPL v2 license, Sun
> has effectively transferred rights to use that scrap of code (in
> any context) regardless of any Sun patents which may apply.
Ah, yes, I was wrong on this one - I see Sect
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Bill McGonigle wrote:
>
> That file says 'Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc.', though, so
> Sun has the rights to do this. But being GPLv2 code, why do I have
> any patent rights to include/redistribute that grub code in my
> (theoretical) product (let's assume it does somet
On May 6, 2008, at 12:54, eric kustarz wrote:
> Some of it has already been done:
> http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/grub/
> grub-0.95/stage2/zfs-include/uberblock_impl.h
That file says 'Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc.', though, so
Sun has the rights to do th
On May 5, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> Is it also true that ZFS can't be re-implemented in GPLv2 code
> because then the CDDL-based patent protections don't apply?
Some of it has already been done:
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/grub/grub-0.95/stage2
Is it also true that ZFS can't be re-implemented in GPLv2 code because then the
CDDL-based patent protections don't apply?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/m
Mario Goebbels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What is the status of ZFS on linux and what are the kernel???s supported?
>
> There's sort of an experimental port to FUSE. Last I heard about it, it
> isn't exactly stable and the ARC's missing too, or at least gimped.
> There won't be in kernel ZFS d
> Also if ZFS can be implemented completely outside of the Linux kernel
> source tree as a plugin module then it falls into the same category of
> modules as proprietary binary device drivers.
The Linux community has a strange attitude about proprietary drivers.
Otherwise I wouldn't have to put up
Mario Goebbels wrote:
>> What is the status of ZFS on linux and what are the kernel’s supported?
>
> There's sort of an experimental port to FUSE. Last I heard about it, it
> isn't exactly stable and the ARC's missing too, or at least gimped.
> There won't be in kernel ZFS due to license issues (C
> What is the status of ZFS on linux and what are the kernel’s supported?
There's sort of an experimental port to FUSE. Last I heard about it, it
isn't exactly stable and the ARC's missing too, or at least gimped.
There won't be in kernel ZFS due to license issues (CDDL vs. GPL).
-mg
Erblichs wrote:
Joerg Schilling,
Stepping back into the tech discussion.
If we want a port of ZFS to Linux to begin, SHOULD the kitchen
sink approach be abandoned for the 1.0 release?? For later
releases, dropped functionality could be added in.
Suggeste
Joerg Schilling,
Stepping back into the tech discussion.
If we want a port of ZFS to Linux to begin, SHOULD the kitchen
sink approach be abandoned for the 1.0 release?? For later
releases, dropped functionality could be added in.
Suggested 1.0 Requirements
Erblichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Shilling,
>
> Putting the license issues aside for a moment.
I was trying to point people to the fact that the biggest problems are
technical problems and that the license discussion was done the wrong way.
> If their is "INTEREST" in ZFS
Erblichs wrote:
> So, if the license issues are removed, I am sure
> that ZFS could be ported over to Linux. It is just
> time and effort...
I believe you are right, there seems to be a lot of interest in porting
ZFS to the Linux kernel. The main problem is, no doubt, the license
Joerg Shilling,
Putting the license issues aside for a moment.
If their is "INTEREST" in ZFS within Linux, should
a small Linux group be formed to break down ZFS in
easily portable sections and non-portable sections.
And get a real-time/effort assessment
"Paul Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any reason that the CDDL dictates, or that Sun would object,
> to zfs being made available as an independently distributed Linux kernel
> module? In other words, if I made an Nvidia-like distribution available,
> would that be OK from the OpenSo
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on OpenSolaris discuss lists
> seems to devolve into a license discussion.
It is funny to see that in our case, the tecnical problems (those caused
by the fact that linux implements a different VFS interface laye
On 13-Apr-07, at 11:53 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Can we please get this licensing debate OFF zfs-discuss.
Ack. :)
--T
The thread has long since lost any relevance to ZFS on Linux or
even ZFS in general. It instead has become yet another debate by
non legally trained people on their
On 13-Apr-07, at 11:43 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 13-Apr-07, at 4:22 AM, Dick Davies wrote:
On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of
Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL
applies ONLY to M
On 13-Apr-07, at 11:39 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.
And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one
that spurred
the creation of the GPL, is "I use this
Can we please get this licensing debate OFF zfs-discuss.
The thread has long since lost any relevance to ZFS on Linux or even ZFS
in general. It instead has become yet another debate by non legally
trained people on their interpretations of one license over another.
--
Darren J Moffat
_
On 13-Apr-07, at 4:22 AM, Dick Davies wrote:
On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of
Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL
applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications thereto*)
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
> IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.
And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
> The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that spurred
> the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to customise it a bit". In
> this s
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote:
Bart Smaalders writes:
Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you
have to do is make your changes to CDDL'd files available. What you
do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance,
build a ZFS for Linux) is u
On 13-Apr-07, at 9:51 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
of Microsoft
- have all foundered on the simple fact that
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
> >
> >> Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
> >> of Microsoft
> >> - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY
>
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote:
> Bart Smaalders writes:
>
> > Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you
> > have to do is make your changes to CDDL'd files available. What you
> > do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance,
> > build a ZFS
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
of Microsoft
- have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY
to MY code
as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has a
On April 13, 2007 10:48:38 AM +0400 Ignatich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know Sun opened most if not all ZFS related patents for OpenSolaris
community. So I repeat questions I asked in my first mail:
1. Are those patents limited to CDDL/OpenSolaris code or can by used in
GPL/Linux too?
2. If G
On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of
Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL
applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it
has absolutely nothing to say about what yo
Bart Smaalders writes:
Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you
have to do is make your changes to CDDL'd files available. What you
do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance,
build a ZFS for Linux) is up to you.
The problem is not with CDD
Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on OpenSolaris discuss lists
seems to devolve into a license discussion.
:0 B:
* GPL
/dev/null
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
> Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of Microsoft
> - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY to MY code
> as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely nothing to say
> about what you do w
Paul Fisher wrote:
Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> So assuming that you simply supply the zfs kernel module
independently and
> CDDL licensed, there is little that the Linux kernel developers could do
> about it. Would never be part of the kernel distribution, but is that
> such a high pr
Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> So assuming that you simply supply the zfs kernel module independently and
> CDDL licensed, there is little that the Linux kernel developers could do
> about it. Would never be part of the kernel distribution, but is that
> such a high price to pay for zfs on linux
On 12-Apr-07, at 8:31 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 12/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> ...
>
> Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact
that
> BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet
On 12-Apr-07, at 8:49 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:51:06PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The same applies to Linux, except that many people believe that
the GPL
would make such a port a deri
On 12-Apr-07, at 7:21 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their
choice
of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature
of the
GPL,
Is it worth reading the rest of your post, if it start
On Thu, April 12, 2007 4:49 pm, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on
> OpenSolaris discuss lists seems to devolve
> into a license discussion.
i think it's a Good Thing because it's important to the
community. talking about something like this is the process
that c
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:51:06PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The same applies to Linux, except that many people believe that the GPL
> >would make such a port a derivative (because it'd link with the GPLed
> >li
On 12/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:01 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
>
>> I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
>> contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of
>> license as
>> equal
On 12/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> ...
>
> Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that
> BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don't
> want to give others the same benefit.
That's
On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
> On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:07:33PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
> Now, all we have to do is respect each other. End of problem.
I think this sub-thread started with a comment by you about someone
else's "kneejerk" "anti-GPL" comments.
I don't recall any such comments in this thread. I think you migh
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
>
> >On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
> >>contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
> > Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their choice
> > of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature of the
> > GPL,
>
> Is it worth reading the rest of your post, if it starts with silliness like
> that?
Do you
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
> >Hey, then just don't *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything
> >else) to GPL.
>
> I never would. But it would be horrifying to imagine it relicensed to
> BSD. (Hello, Microsoft, you just got yourself a competitive filesystem.
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
...
Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that
BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don't
want to give others the same benefit.
That's a pointless remark. Why?
BSD licensors choose that licens
On 12-Apr-07, at 8:34 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ignatich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joerg Schilling writes:
There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL.
Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux.
I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to
p
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:01 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of
license as
equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
Read what I
On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
Hey,
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote:
>
> > Rich Teer writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
> >>> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
> >>> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
>
Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You see no problems, I see no problems but various Linux people do,
> including Linus. But as all we have is a collection of different viewpoints
> and nothing has been "decided" in a court of law, the exact meaning is
> open to interpretation/discussion.
Darren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> What stands in ZFS's favour is that it has not been create _for_ Linux,
> rather that using the various header files is a way of _also_ making it
> available for Linux. Search the internet for discussions of the porting
> of AFS to Linux (I think it was AFS where
From: "Joerg Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ignatich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joerg Schilling writes:
> There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL.
>
> Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux.
> I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publ
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The
> > BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL
> > licensors (myself included).
>
> Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that
> B
Ignatich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling writes:
>
> > There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL.
> >
> > Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux.
> > I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS
> > under
> > GPL in case
Joerg Schilling writes:
There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL.
Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux.
I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS under
GPL in case you use it on Linux. The CDDL however allows you to use it toge
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnesse
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> > I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
> > contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as
> > equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
>
> Read wha
Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
> contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
> as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
>
> The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
> Hey, then just don't *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything
> else) to GPL.
Amen to that!
> I don't think a lot of Solaris users ask on the Linux kernel mailing
> list to relicense Linux kernel components to CDDL so that they can use
> the feature
On 11/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote:
> Rich Teer writes:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
>>> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
>>> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
>> I a
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
> I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
> contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as
> equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
Read what I wrote again, more slowly.
Individually, Linux
From: "Toby Thain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote:
Rich Teer writes:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
I agree with this sentime
On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
Hey, then just don't *keep on* asking to relicense
On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote:
Rich Teer writes:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing th
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote:
> Does Sun have plans to dual license ZFS as GPL so it can be ported to native
> Linux?
I don't work for Sun so I can't speak for them. The last I heard was that
Sun was looking at GPLv3, and considering its use for one or more projects,
either dual licensed
Robert Milkowski writes:
I'm looking closely to GPLv3 but maybe Linux should change it's
license to actually provide more freedom and problem would disappear
then. See ZFS being ported to FreeBSD.
Will GPLv3 be CDDL compatible? I don't think so, but I'm no lawyer.
Perhaps somebody with more kn
Rich Teer writes:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the
Linux kernel's license would require the
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the
Linux kernel's license would require the consent of every co
On 4/11/07, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm looking closely to GPLv3 but maybe Linux should change it's
license to actually provide more freedom and problem would disappear
then. See ZFS being ported to FreeBSD.
Agreed.
Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why n
Hello Ignatich,
Thursday, April 12, 2007, 12:32:13 AM, you wrote:
I> Hello,
I> I believe that ZFS and it's concepts is truly revolutionary to the
I> point that I no longer see any OS as modern if it does not have
I> comparable storage functionality. Therefore I think that file
I> system/disk man
72 matches
Mail list logo
