FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-18-2010, 06:37 PM
Bill Longman
 
Default How to build a time machine on Gentoo

On 08/18/2010 11:03 AM, Nganon wrote:
> Clear now, thanks.
>
>
> If you want a robust filesystem, look into ZFS/BTRFS.
>
>
> AFAIK ZFS is unmaintained and BTRFS is not stable, am I wrong?

Not really. ZFS is only available on Solaris right now. I seem to
remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of
licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with
BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in
any way--it worked okay.
 
Old 08-18-2010, 06:49 PM
 
Default How to build a time machine on Gentoo

Bill Longman <bill.longman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/18/2010 11:03 AM, Nganon wrote:
> > Clear now, thanks.
> >
> >
> > If you want a robust filesystem, look into ZFS/BTRFS.
> >
> >
> > AFAIK ZFS is unmaintained and BTRFS is not stable, am I wrong?

Why do you believe ZFS is unmaintained?

> Not really. ZFS is only available on Solaris right now. I seem to
> remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of
> licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with
> BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in
> any way--it worked okay.

ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to the
BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"?

Also note: btrfs now is three years old. ZFS was started aprox. 10 years ago.
For this reason, btrfs is expected to need another 7 years to readh the level
of stability currently seen with ZFS.


Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
 
Old 08-18-2010, 06:53 PM
Nganon
 
Default How to build a time machine on Gentoo

On 18 August 2010 21:37, Bill Longman <bill.longman@gmail.com> wrote:



On 08/18/2010 11:03 AM, Nganon wrote:

> Clear now, thanks.

>

>

> * * If you want a robust filesystem, look into ZFS/BTRFS.

>

>

> AFAIK ZFS is unmaintained and BTRFS is not stable, am I wrong?



Not really. ZFS is only available on Solaris right now. I seem to

remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of

licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with

BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in

any way--it worked okay.




Right, remembered after reading the 'licensing', it was only available through FUSE.*
I just checked on BTRFS. wiki.kernel.org says BTRFS is stable as of 2.6.29 but still*


masked on Gentoo. I will read more about it later and decide whether to convert.*
 
Old 08-18-2010, 07:04 PM
Nganon
 
Default How to build a time machine on Gentoo

On 18 August 2010 21:49, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:


Bill Longman <bill.longman@gmail.com> wrote:



> On 08/18/2010 11:03 AM, Nganon wrote:

> > Clear now, thanks.

> >

> >

> > * * If you want a robust filesystem, look into ZFS/BTRFS.

> >

> >

> > AFAIK ZFS is unmaintained and BTRFS is not stable, am I wrong?



Why do you believe ZFS is unmaintained?


*I was unsure, thats why I asked if I was wrong. My bad.*



> Not really. ZFS is only available on Solaris right now. I seem to

> remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of

> licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with

> BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in

> any way--it worked okay.



ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to the

BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"?



Because ZFS is licensed with Sun CDDL, which is*incompatible*with GNU GPL,*so it cant be distributed with Linux kernel. That's why it is ported to FUSE.



Also note: btrfs now is three years old. ZFS was started aprox. 10 years ago.

For this reason, btrfs is expected to need another 7 years to readh the level

of stability currently seen with ZFS.



ZFS was announced on 2004. So approximately six year, not ten. Besides, things in*computer world*do not always*work that linearly, you know. *
 
Old 08-18-2010, 07:09 PM
Bill Longman
 
Default How to build a time machine on Gentoo

On 08/18/2010 11:49 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Bill Longman <bill.longman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/18/2010 11:03 AM, Nganon wrote:
>>> Clear now, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want a robust filesystem, look into ZFS/BTRFS.
>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK ZFS is unmaintained and BTRFS is not stable, am I wrong?
>
> Why do you believe ZFS is unmaintained?

That's Nganon's comment. I'll let him answer.

>
>> Not really. ZFS is only available on Solaris right now. I seem to
>> remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of
>> licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with
>> BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in
>> any way--it worked okay.
>
> ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to the
> BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"?

Only for getting it to run on Linux. The CDDL doesn't play well with GPL.

> Also note: btrfs now is three years old. ZFS was started aprox. 10 years ago.
> For this reason, btrfs is expected to need another 7 years to readh the level
> of stability currently seen with ZFS.

Might take even less!
 
Old 08-18-2010, 07:28 PM
 
Default How to build a time machine on Gentoo

Nganon <nganon+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Not really. ZFS is only available on Solaris right now. I seem to
> > > remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of
> > > licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with
> > > BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in
> > > any way--it worked okay.
> >
> > ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to
> > the
> > BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"?
> >
> >
> Because ZFS is licensed with Sun CDDL, which is incompatible with GNU GPL,
> so it cant be distributed with Linux kernel. That's why it is ported to
> FUSE.

The CDDL is as incompatible to the GPL as the BSD license.

Both do not allow to change the license of the code and for this reason, a code
combination cannot happen as a "derivative work". If you like to create a
derivative work from a GPL program and BSD code from another person, you would
need to declare the code from another person to be _your_ "modification". This
is something that would violate the Copyright law.

The GPL however permits code combinations as "collective work". As the GPL
then is only valir for the GPL part of the whole, this does not cause
"incompatibilities".


> Also note: btrfs now is three years old. ZFS was started aprox. 10 years
> > ago.
> > For this reason, btrfs is expected to need another 7 years to readh the
> > level
> > of stability currently seen with ZFS.
> >
> >
> ZFS was announced on 2004. So approximately six year, not ten. Besides,
> things in
> computer world do not always work that linearly, you know.

In 2002, the ZFS developers have already been forced to have their
homedirectories on ZFS. In 2004, ZFS was already under test in universities.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
 
Old 08-18-2010, 07:29 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default How to build a time machine on Gentoo

Apparently, though unproven, at 20:49 on Wednesday 18 August 2010, Joerg
Schilling did opine thusly:

> > remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of
> > licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with
> > BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in
> > any way--it worked okay.
>
> ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to
> the BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"?

You appear to not fully understand the licenses.

Remember that the Linux kernel is GPL-2 and it's modules are considered
derivative works. The GPL-2 license demands that all derivative works be
either GPL-2 licensed or 100% compatible with the GPL-2.

ZFS is licensed CCDL which although free and liberal, is not GPL-2 compatible.
It is BSD-compatible which is why the BSDs can (and some do) ship it.

The ZFS license is thus not a mere hurdle, it is an un-overcomeable barrier in
it's current form. If Oracle were to re-license it then the problem could be
solved, but few in this game hold any hope of that ever happening.

But all of this has been hashed to death many many many times here and in
other places - to the point where it is now conclusive. Google will reveal the
entire discussion in all it's painful detail. Start with lkml.

Let's not rehash it here again. Please, I beg of you. Let us not do that.

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 08-18-2010, 08:03 PM
 
Default How to build a time machine on Gentoo

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> > ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to
> > the BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"?
>
> You appear to not fully understand the licenses.

Well, I of course fully understand the licenses. It may however be that you
are missinformed because you have been listening to the wrong people.

> Remember that the Linux kernel is GPL-2 and it's modules are considered
> derivative works. The GPL-2 license demands that all derivative works be
> either GPL-2 licensed or 100% compatible with the GPL-2.

This is a claim that in conflict with the US copyright law.

Check out:

http://www.osscc.net/en/gpl.html

There are verious statements from various lawyers that explain this and even
give evidence for their claims.

The GPL tries to redefine the definition for the term "derivative work" but this
is forbidden by US Copyright law title 17 section 106. See my other posting for
more information.


> ZFS is licensed CCDL which although free and liberal, is not GPL-2 compatible.
> It is BSD-compatible which is why the BSDs can (and some do) ship it.
>
> The ZFS license is thus not a mere hurdle, it is an un-overcomeable barrier in

The only hurdle is in the brain of some Linux developers.

I know of not a single lawyer that could claim such incompatibility and gives
evidence for his statements.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
 
Old 08-19-2010, 09:30 AM
 
Default How to build a time machine on Gentoo

Let me add some text I wrote for another place but that explains how things
would work:

1) The OpenSource definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
section 9 makes it very clear that an OSS license must not restrict other
software and must not prevent to bundle different works under different
licenses on one medium.

2) given the fact that the GPL is an aproved OSS licensse, it obviously
complies with the OSS definition.

3) as a result, any GPL interpretation that is based on the assumption that a
separate distribution would fix problems is wrong.

There is a simple rule:

- If you modify a GPLd work by your own, so that all you add was written
by you for this modification only, then you created a "derivative work"
and you need to put your modifications under GPL.

- If you add another independent work to a GPLd work, you create a so
called "collective work". This is permitted by the GPL. In this case,
the GPL only applies to the GPLd part and the license for the other
work applies to the other work. You need to respect the sum of all
claims from all licenses in this case. Such a collective work can only
be distributed if the claims from the licenses are not contradicting.
If one license e.g. permits redistribution on Mondays only and the
other permits redistribution on Wednesdays only, you cannot publish
the collective work.

ZFS is an independent work with respect to the Linx kernel. It was not
written for or with the Linux kernel.

- If like to you add ZFS to the Linux kernel, you first need to create a
derivative work from ZFS and another derivative work from the Linux
kernel in order to allow both to work together. You later create a
collective work from the combination of the derivative works mentioned
before. The modification in the ZFS code (in case they appear in
files that come with ZFS) need to be put under CDDL, the modifications
in the Linux kernel need to be put under GPL.

Note: the GPLv3 tries to disallow most collective works, so be careful with
GPLv3.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:33 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org