Jump to content

Linus Torvalds: Avoid Oracle's ZFS kernel code on Linux until 'litigious' Larry signs off


steven36

Recommended Posts

Torvalds doesn't want to be hounded by Oracle's legal team for merging ZFS filesystem code into the Linux kernel.

 

132589737_157866536220798970.jpg

 

Linux kernel head Linus Torvalds has warned engineers against adding a module for the ZFS filesystem that was designed by Sun Microsystems – and now owned by Oracle – due to licensing issues.

 

As reported by Phoronix, Torvalds has warned kernel developers against using ZFS on Linux, an implementation of OpenZFS, and refuses to merge any ZFS code until Oracle changes the open-source license it uses. 

 

ZFS has long been licensed under Sun's Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) as opposed to the Linux kernel, which is licensed under GNU General Public License (GPL).

 

Torvalds aired his opinion on the matter in response to a developer who argued that a recent kernel change "broke an important third-party module: ZFS".

 

The Linux kernel creator says he refuses to merge the ZFS module into the kernel because he can't risk a lawsuit from "litigious" Oracle – which is still trying to sue Google for copyright violations over its use of Java APIs in Android – and Torvalds won't do so until Oracle founder Larry Ellison signs off on its use in the Linux kernel. 

 

"If somebody adds a kernel module like ZFS, they are on their own. I can't maintain it and I cannot be bound by other people's kernel changes," explained Torvalds

 

 

"And honestly, there is no way I can merge any of the ZFS efforts until I get an official letter from Oracle that is signed by their main legal counsel or preferably by Larry Ellison himself that says that yes, it's OK to do so and treat the end result as GPL'd," Torvalds continued.     

 

"Other people think it can be OK to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it OK, and that's their decision. But considering Oracle's litigious nature, and the questions over licensing, there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so."

 

The licensing problem is explained on an FAQ from the developers of ZFS on Linux.

 

"While both are free open-source licenses they are restrictive licenses. The combination of them causes problems because it prevents using pieces of code exclusively available under one license with pieces of code exclusively available under the other in the same binary," the ZFS developers write. 

 

"In the case of the kernel, this prevents us from distributing ZFS on Linux as part of the kernel binary. However, there is nothing in either license that prevents distributing it in the form of a binary module or in the form of source code."

 

Torvalds addressed this issue too in his response and dismissed the idea of a proposed 'ZFS shim layer' to address problems combining two projects with different licenses, particularly due to Oracle's Java API copyright lawsuit. 

 

"And I'm not at all interested in some 'ZFS shim layer' thing either that some people seem to think would isolate the two projects. That adds no value to our side, and given Oracle's interface copyright suits (see Java), I don't think it's any real licensing win either," he explained. 

 

His final words on the matter: "Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for me."

 

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 4
  • Views 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I hope the Linux community is strong enough to change his mind about ZFS filesystem's licensing issues. Mr Torvalds may ask Mr Ellison first about His opinion about the matter. And " Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than anything else " is simply ridiculous from a professional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, karman said:

I hope the Linux community is strong enough to change his mind about ZFS filesystem's licensing issues. Mr Torvalds may ask Mr Ellison first about His opinion about the matter. And " Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than anything else " is simply ridiculous from a professional.

It  not  up for debate without  a written agreement from oracle lawyers it not going to happen .  People have been using ZFS   on linux for years anyway  Ubuntu is experimenting with it now  or use  OpenZFS and implement it yourself .Btrfs and Zfs are unstable and Zfs is unsupported as well.  So  it's not worth the risk  to use unstable and unsupported file systems it could  corrupt  my data.  ;) 

 

You think  him saying ZFS is a buzzword  is ridiculous ?  Well that just him being polite the old Torvalds would of cussed  them out. :hehe:

 

Hes not going  to put  a file system in Linux  that is not GPL v2 because that would be the end  of Linux  as we know it.  Sun/Oracle are to blame they released
Zfs under  the  GPL  incompatible CDDL. Sun was hoping to make OpenSolaris the next Linux  . It's because of there brain farts and greed it was not put in Linux already .:tooth:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


C.G.B. Spender

I understand the point Mr Torvalds is coming from, but ZFS is the future of storage. Regular layman end user cares about features and functions not lawyer license copyright mumbo jumbo. I use it myself on 30TB of storage and while I know raidz2 ain't replacement for backup, it has saved my bacon few times already when a drive in raid failed and I didn't lose any data. Without ZFS I'd have lost 20TB of movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 1/11/2020 at 3:37 AM, C.G.B. Spender said:

I understand the point Mr Torvalds is coming from, but ZFS is the future of storage. Regular layman end user cares about features and functions not lawyer license copyright mumbo jumbo. I use it myself on 30TB of storage and while I know raidz2 ain't replacement for backup, it has saved my bacon few times already when a drive in raid failed and I didn't lose any data. Without ZFS I'd have lost 20TB of movies.

 

Quote

What someone who does not have to deal with real licenses and real world project management might say. You don't bend the rules of your project just because you think something might be useful for someone, you end with a lawless mess or worse with a nepotism-based system where sucking the right sock is the only way to get what you want.

 

That's  you choice  but what Regular layman want never have mattered when it comes  to license copyright in the Linux Kernel  , Sun were  not as bad as Oracle and Microsoft  lost in court for using there stuff without  there permission   What ever happens to Google in the end will have a lot  to do  with how Oracle's  license are used in the future .

 

Quote

ZFS could be the fastest file system in the world and randomly disperse kittens and I still wouldn’t touch it with a ten metre pole if I were Linus. Oracle is a colony of snakes led by the biggest snake of them all, and adding their code – even through shims or interfaces – should be a complete non-starter for any project.

 

And saying  people don't have problems with open   ZFS  is crazy  because people do everyday because they have  935  open issues  right now  and over  4000 closed ones.

https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues

 

You  can use  open ZFS if you want but it want never be put in the Linux Kernel  unless Oracle' makes it GPL like Virtual Box is . They even a catch to using Virtual Box while the software it self is GPL  the addon pack is not and only free to home users and they have sued business for using it  there snakes. So your better off paying for VMWare  for home users  you can use keygens .

 

They too many businesses that pay Linus's  salary it would be put at risk by putting ZFS in the Linux Kernel  so what the average home user wants don't matter you can use Open ZFS  legally  but   businesses tend to leech off open source some never give back to Linux  like when many businesses was using jonathonf ppa  without  donating to him cause him to set certain ones to private only

https://old.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/e984zb/jonathonf_ppa_offline/

 

But he open ZFS back up to the public  if you want  to add it to LTS it's your choice.

https://launchpad.net/~jonathonf/+archive/ubuntu/zfs

 

People  using warez in Enterprise  or  posting it to profit  are no different than Linux Enterprise free loaders  there the lowest of the low and should be fined  for it .  That why we can't have nice stuff  is people  abuse software for there own greed and people get mad and stop supplying it .i have no pity on the rich man .:dance2:

 

Quote

The battle between file systems is as old as DOS vs Unix battles. And the pragmatic solution to the problem has always been the same — Instead of falling into the trap of evangelising one system over another, use the one that fits your use case the best.

 

Just because Linus dont recommend it or i dont use it  don't mean  you cant use it . Me myself i'm software  agnostic  if i find something useful in my user case i use it   .   I stay out   of the  Linux community drama and use what i want if really need it.  But there is lots of software out there i have no reason to use . And just because the masses use it don't mean i will unless i find it something i really need. It like dont use ZFS PPA by jonathonf but i use 2 of his VLC  and ffmpeg-4 . He  made private ffmpeg-4 for awhile as well because of Linux Enterprise free loaders   but open it back up so i added it back and updated  it. ;)

 

Ubuntu PPA have older versions except for 20.04  dev is new.

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/zfs-linux

 

So you need use jonathonf  or compile yourself  if you want to always have the latest  Open ZFS .

 

But really  it not something  most people ever needed
 

Quote

starshipeleven: If so much clients cared about checksumming, Windows server would not exist, RHEL would not exist, SUSE enterprise would not exist and everyone would be using Solaris and FreeBSD as those were the only ones that had ZFS support for a long while.The entire point of RAID is to protect agains disk failure, data integrity provided by hardware ECC in the drives themselves is enough for most single server customers. Seriously, how did the world survive when ZFS didn't exist? Servers didn't blow up, data wasn't lost and so on, it matters only in very rare cases.

 

In your case it matter because your a data hoarder , but im also a data hoarder and my drives I  have have been fine  for many years so it never mattered to me.:tooth:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...