| |||||||||||||
ZFSZFSPosted Jul 6, 2006 9:24 UTC (Thu) by jec (subscriber, #5803)Parent article: The 2006 Linux Filesystems Workshop (Part III)
If only Sun would donate ZFS as GPL for the Linux kernel...
(Log in to post comments)
ZFS Posted Jul 6, 2006 14:12 UTC (Thu) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] Seems unlikely, as it's probably the only Solaris technology of interest to non-enterprise users. (That is: When I get around to building a fileserver for the house, I'm going to be very tempted by Solaris because of ZFS, despite years of built-up dislike.)
ZFS Posted Jul 7, 2006 1:49 UTC (Fri) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link] If only we would stop sighing over Sun's non-offering.
ZFS Posted Jul 8, 2006 7:59 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Sun are extremely unlikely to release ZFS under GPLv2.
That said, it is likely that CDDL and GPLv3 code could be combined, judging by the current GPLv3 drafts at least. Just have to wait and see (and persuade Linus to reconsider the GPLv2-only licence).
There are people working on ZFS for non-Solaris systems, iirc there are efforts to do ports to BSD and Linux FUSE.
Relicensing Posted Jul 13, 2006 19:39 UTC (Thu) by ringerc (subscriber, #3071) [Link] "and persuade Linus to reconsder the GPLv2 only license"
He can't. He could relicense _his_ contributions under GPlv3, but he can't relicense the whole kernel as no one person (him or otherwise) holds the copyright, and the license currently states that it is GPLv2 ONLY. Relicensing the whole kernel would require the consent of every contributor (or their estate) which is awfully unlikely to happen, and insanely impractical. How would you find them all? Heck, how would you find out who they all were?
Relicensing Posted Sep 25, 2006 9:36 UTC (Mon) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] He can. He wrote the GPLv2-only statement as interpretative comment on the lincense himself in the 2.4.0-pre-versions, without asking anyone, so he can remove it as well. It's his right as redistributor of GPL code to choose the license, when it is originally under GPLv2-or-later, and it is his right to change his choice. If anyone wants his code in Linux to be GPLv2-only, he has to mark it himself as such. AFAIK, nobody ever did (while quite a lot clairified that they really meant GPLv2-or-later). Note that Linus does not have the right to change the GPL. All he can is to add comments to it. The GPLv2 is GPLv2 or later by default, unless explicitely stated otherwise, and you get the license from the original author. However, each redistributor can only be forced to do what he's obliged to under the license version he chose.
ZFS Posted Jul 19, 2006 12:06 UTC (Wed) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link] The Google Summer of Code project is sponsoring the port of ZFS to Linux FUSE, the developer already has a ZFS FUSE Wiki and SVN instructions and a blog.
ZFS Posted Jul 8, 2006 10:48 UTC (Sat) by skissane (subscriber, #38675) [Link] Even if the licensing conditions are such that ZFS can never go into Linux... the fact that the source code is freely available means that it should be much easier for someone to implement a ZFS-style filesystem of their own, since they have a production-quality working example to confer to... thus, the open sourcing of ZFS makes it more likely that Linux will get ZFS-style technology, even if not by means of ZFS per se....
|
|||||||||||||