7 ms·

If that ecosystem have changed their values/opinions on that topic, the it wouldn't be an impossible task to dual-license it with a compatible license. (Hard a

If that ecosystem have changed their values/opinions on that topic, the it wouldn't be an impossible task to dual-license it with a compatible license. (Hard and tedious work, but not impossible).

SXX 1y ago
The only entity that can change of ZFS license is Oracle and they obviously wouldnt do that.
- bluGill 1y ago
  They could rewrite all the code, and then change the license. Patents might still apply (but patents are short enough that I expect if any existed they have expired). However ZFS is a lot of code that is often tricky to get right. It will be really hard to rewrite in a way that the courts don't (reasonably/correctly) say wasn't a rewrite it was just moving some lines so you can claim ownership, but it is possible. By the time anyone knows enough about zfs that they could attempt this they are also too tainted by the existing code. So of course they won't, but it isn't impossible.
  - habitue 1y ago
    I mean, bcachefs is basically the equivalent of rewriting all that code, without explicitly trying to be a clone. Same for btrfs
    - bluGill 1y ago
      And how hard it is proves that zfs didn't make a bad choice in not trying the same. (though it would be interesting if either had a goal of a clone - that is same on disk data structures. Interesting but probably a bad decision as I have no doubt there is something about zfs that they regret today - just because the project is more than 10 years old)
- ggiesen 1y ago
  It's supposedly the opinion of Oracle that the CDDL is GPL-compatible and that's the reason they won't do that.
  - ggiesen 1y ago
    For context: https://sfconservancy.org/videos/2023-07-14_FOSSY-2023_RHEL-Keynote-Panel.mp4 https://sfconservancy.org/videos/2023-07-14_FOSSY-2023_RHEL-... (FF to 37:34)
    - wbl 1y ago
      That wasn't exactly the answer.
      - ggiesen 1y ago
        Yeah, I agree based in rewatching that I've either misrecalled the original material, or I got it from another source. I agree that based on that source, it's more like "meh, we don't really care" (until they do)
  - Macha 1y ago
    I would not rely on the non-binding opinion of a company known for deploying its lawyers in aid of revenue generation
  - Conan_Kudo 1y ago
    Oracle didn't follow that with DTrace. They changed the license away from CDDL when they integrated it into Oracle Linux.

If that ecosystem have changed their values/opinions on that topic, the it wouldn't be an impossible task to dual-license it with a compatible license. (Hard and tedious work, but not impossible).

SXX 1y ago

The only entity that can change of ZFS license is Oracle and they obviously wouldnt do that.

bluGill 1y ago
They could rewrite all the code, and then change the license. Patents might still apply (but patents are short enough that I expect if any existed they have expired). However ZFS is a lot of code that is often tricky to get right. It will be really hard to rewrite in a way that the courts don't (reasonably/correctly) say wasn't a rewrite it was just moving some lines so you can claim ownership, but it is possible. By the time anyone knows enough about zfs that they could attempt this they are also too tainted by the existing code. So of course they won't, but it isn't impossible.
- habitue 1y ago
  I mean, bcachefs is basically the equivalent of rewriting all that code, without explicitly trying to be a clone. Same for btrfs
  - bluGill 1y ago
    And how hard it is proves that zfs didn't make a bad choice in not trying the same. (though it would be interesting if either had a goal of a clone - that is same on disk data structures. Interesting but probably a bad decision as I have no doubt there is something about zfs that they regret today - just because the project is more than 10 years old)
ggiesen 1y ago
It's supposedly the opinion of Oracle that the CDDL is GPL-compatible and that's the reason they won't do that.
- ggiesen 1y ago
  For context: https://sfconservancy.org/videos/2023-07-14_FOSSY-2023_RHEL-Keynote-Panel.mp4 https://sfconservancy.org/videos/2023-07-14_FOSSY-2023_RHEL-... (FF to 37:34)
  - wbl 1y ago
    That wasn't exactly the answer.
    - ggiesen 1y ago
      Yeah, I agree based in rewatching that I've either misrecalled the original material, or I got it from another source. I agree that based on that source, it's more like "meh, we don't really care" (until they do)
- Macha 1y ago
  I would not rely on the non-binding opinion of a company known for deploying its lawyers in aid of revenue generation
- Conan_Kudo 1y ago
  Oracle didn't follow that with DTrace. They changed the license away from CDDL when they integrated it into Oracle Linux.