On Wednesday 2016-04-06 23:13, Lindsay Mathieson wrote:

Is there any chance of OpenSUSE gaining ZFS integration? esepcially for root file system installs?

Why, did the legal situation change in the meantime? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Lindsay Mathieson wrote:

Is there any chance of OpenSUSE gaining ZFS integration? esepcially for root file system installs?

The GPL is a strong copyleft license. I think it's completely reasonable for strict GPL adherents to be a total sticks in the mud and completely intractable, until proven otherwise, when it comes to no CDDL code being dragged into prior GPL code. It's likewise reasonable for the community and distro to improve documentation to make it easy for users to install ZFS after the fact. It is production stable, although maybe there are some unknowns (to me at least) about how ZFS on Linux behaves in device failure cases, where Btrfs is still a work in progress. But honestly, especially where there are so many resources in Btrfs on SUSE/openSUSE I think that's where the emphasis should be. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Отправлено с iPhone

7 апр. 2016 г., в 8:09, Michal Kubecek написал(а):

...

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:50:37AM +0930, Simon Lees wrote:

To summarize from https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2016-02/msg00159.html

This has been our stance since 2006:

Developers of the kernel community consider non-GPL kernel modules to be infringing on their copyright. openSUSE does respect this position and will not distribute non-GPL kernel modules as part of products.

...and yet we go to a long length to make everyone who wants to use nvidia or fglrx drivers their experience as comfortable as possible (while not crossing the thin line of "providing them as part of our products").

While I completely agree with not providing ZFS, I would rather avoid basing it on reasoning like above if we are apparently completely fine with kernel modules which are not even open source. Some might even use the H-word, I guess.

That's fine - so someone will need to host external repo with ZFS. Just like packman does. But it is not, what this thread asked, right? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On Wednesday 2016-04-06 23:13, Lindsay Mathieson wrote:

...

Is there any chance of OpenSUSE gaining ZFS integration? esepcially for root file system installs?

Why, did the legal situation change in the meantime?

Just because the legal situation did not change and because Suse seems to be based on real legal ratings rather than FUD from some anti-OSS people, I would expect a real chance... Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Michal Kubecek wrote:

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:50:37AM +0930, Simon Lees wrote:

...

To summarize from https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2016-02/msg00159.html

This has been our stance since 2006:

Developers of the kernel community consider non-GPL kernel modules to be infringing on their copyright. openSUSE does respect this position and will not distribute non-GPL kernel modules as part of products.

... While I completely agree with not providing ZFS, I would rather avoid basing it on reasoning like above if we are apparently completely fine with kernel modules which are not even open source. Some might even use the H-word, I guess.

I aggree, in special as these kernel people seem to be uninformed regarding legal reasoning. Once they removed all BSD code from the kernel, they may become believable. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On Thursday 2016-04-07 10:22, Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

Jan Engelhardt wrote:

...

On Wednesday 2016-04-06 23:13, Lindsay Mathieson wrote:

...

Is there any chance of OpenSUSE gaining ZFS integration? esepcially for root file system installs?

Why, did the legal situation change in the meantime?

Just because the legal situation did not change and because Suse seems to be based on real legal ratings rather than FUD from some anti-OSS people, I would expect a real chance...

openSUSE ships cdrtools, which has a similar situation(?), so perhaps ZOL is fine for the same reason, but who am I to say..

There is a really related legal "essay" from March 2005 that explains that filesystems are usually independent works and that integrating a file system with a different license than GPL is just fine for Linux. This is in the Book Die GPL kommentiert und erklärt (Till Jaeger et. al, O'Reilly März 2005) Note that this are the lawyers that work for Harald Welte... See: http://www.osscc.net/en/gplger.html#gpl-kernel Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/04/16 06:55, Michal Kubecek wrote:

...

...

...

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:50:37AM +0930, Simon Lees wrote:

Developers of the kernel community consider non-GPL kernel modules to be infringing on their copyright. openSUSE does respect this position and will not distribute non-GPL kernel modules as part of products. ...and yet we go to a long length to make everyone who wants to use nvidia or fglrx drivers their experience as comfortable as possible (while not crossing the thin line of "providing them as part of our

7 апр. 2016 г., в 8:09, Michal Kubecek написал(а): products").

While I completely agree with not providing ZFS, I would rather avoid basing it on reasoning like above if we are apparently completely fine with kernel modules which are not even open source. Some might even use the H-word, I guess. That's fine - so someone will need to host external repo with ZFS. Just like packman does. But it is not, what this thread asked, right? That's definitely not what I wanted to say. My point is: please don't

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:32:39AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: base our refusal to provide ZFS support on "non-GPL modules are bad, if you want them, you are on your own" unless we are ready to say (and do) the same for nvidia and fglrx.

I definitely didn't want to say we should do the same for ZFS as for those two drivers (i.e. provide them in the most comfortable way that still allows us to say we technically don't). We shouldn't, IMHO.

Michal Kubeček

Although they taint the kernel, the corporations - Nvidia and AMD do all the work in house to support their products in Linux and are responsible for fixing any problems, not the distributions. As far as I know, Oracle does not support ZFS on Linux. Who would you suggest take on the development and possibly a fork of ZFS to Linux if Oracle does not and even if Oracle would not object? As for legality -- remember Oracle is currently in court seeking legal remedy from Google over Java parts of Android. Permission not explicitly given opens one up to being litigated against. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Senior Staff Specialist, Cricket Coach Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 7/04/2016 8:40 PM, Sid Boyce wrote:

Who would you suggest take on the development and possibly a fork of ZFS to Linux if Oracle does not and even if Oracle would not object?

Eh? Its already forked and maintained by the zfsonlinux crowd. -- Lindsay Mathieson -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, 2016-04-07 at 11:40 +0100, Sid Boyce wrote:

Although they taint the kernel, the corporations - Nvidia and AMD do all the work in house to support their products in Linux and are responsible for fixing any problems, not the distributions.

Not at all with the rpms. Nvidia refuses to fix problems unless you report them while using the .run file directly. Read their readme in their server. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlcGRi8ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VsawCff8SKKRdwR63Ije19EwO+hcvq RpQAnjavTgcWC3ROtKICmQjiMt/foh21 =M3Mb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:40:35AM +0100, Sid Boyce wrote:

On 07/04/16 06:55, Michal Kubecek wrote:

...

I definitely didn't want to say we should do the same for ZFS as for those two drivers (i.e. provide them in the most comfortable way that still allows us to say we technically don't). We shouldn't, IMHO.

... Who would you suggest take on the development and possibly a fork of ZFS to Linux if Oracle does not and even if Oracle would not object?

Did you really read the paragraph above (which you quoted in your response)? In case you did but didn't understand it, let me try again: I do _not_ suggest to make _any_ effort to make using ZFS on openSUSE any easier. Let me repeat: *I* *do* *not*. If someone wants to use ZFS on openSUSE, he is on his own, we should not make it any easier than building and installing any other third party module. Is my opinion clear now? Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, 2016-04-07 at 16:18 +0100, Sid Boyce wrote:

On 07/04/16 12:36, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

Although they taint the kernel, the corporations - Nvidia and AMD do all the work in house to support their products in Linux and are responsible for fixing any problems, not the distributions.

Not at all with the rpms. Nvidia refuses to fix problems unless you report them while using the .run file directly. Read their readme in their server.

I never saw NVidia release a rpm going all the way back to when Christian Zander was their first Linux developer and he an I worked closely to provide patches to drivers for -rc kernels.

That is so. The rpms are prepared by openSUSE people, but published on NVidia servers by their kindness. If there are problems with the rpms, NVidia points people to the openSUSE bug reporting system. NVidia refuses to handle them. They ask people to instead install the .run file, and if the issue is reproducible that way, then report to NVidia. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlcI5DoACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WF4gCfYbb93G5YqaEpXJoPX6lvkIte jfoAniTc/kxaIqhaCcFim0dUTLE903WS =/l/j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org