(to the tune of “‘ere-we-go”…)
ZFS! ZFS! ZFS!
ZFS! ZFS! ZF-Essssssssssss!
ZFS! ZFS! ZFS!
ZF-eh-S! Z! F! S!
There.
Happy now?
So can I now just get-on with annoying Engineering by calling it Zed-FS in public?
Obligatory ZFS Posting
Comments
10 responses to “Obligatory ZFS Posting”
-
re: Obligatory ZFS Posting
Zee/Zed, however you pronounce it, it’s still a year late. 🙂
-
re: Obligatory ZFS Posting
This is a seriously cool filesystem with amazing features. I can’t wait for an OS X port.
-
re: Obligatory ZFS Posting
<i>So can I now just get-on with annoying Engineering by calling it Zed-FS in public?</i>
Oof, I only just realised now reading that that our US colleagues will have been calling it “Zee-FS”. That sounds horrible!
Zed-FS!
-
re: Obligatory ZFS Posting
Consider yourself lucky that it’s not called the “Sun Java Enterprise Intellectual-Capital Storage Metasystem” or something daft like that. The rumours I’ve heard were not far off that level of lunacy.
-
ZFS licensing
I don’t know if the license that ZFS is distributed under (CDDL) would be compatible with the BSD license of Darwin (the UNIX core of OSX). It may be, but it may not.
However, if you mix ZFS with other software (i.e. OSX) it would appear that you loose any and all patent protection that the CDDL gives you.
CDDL says:
(d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is granted: (1) for code that You delete from the Original Software, or (2) for infringements caused by: (i) the modification of the Original Software, or (ii) the combination of the Original Software with other software or devices.
I would have preferred Sun to use the GPL or a GPL compatible license but they didn’t, as is their prerogative (sic, that’s what my spellchecker says!).
What reasoning they had is unknown to me, but I do think it is unfortunate that they have chosen to isolate themselves in this way. 🙁
Chris
-
re: ZFS licensing
Bad form to reply to yourself, I know, but it’s worth stating that Sun, as the copyright holder, would be completely within their rights, should they choose, to do dual licensing of their code under the CDDL and under the GPL in exactly the same way that people like MySQL dual license under a commercial license and the GPL.
Chris
-
re: ZFS licensing
Re: prerogative – Just wondering how you’d prefer to spell it. Prerogotive? Prerogatave?
Re: licencing – I’m afraid I don’t follow you at all. The bits you quote from the CDDL refer to modifications, not to the original code.
In any case, once I get an x86 powerbook (and someone smarter than me writes a howto for installing solaris on it), zfs is going to be used to archive all my digital photos and videos.
-
re: ZFS licensing
I’ve always heard it pronounced as perogative. Must be because I’m Welsh that makes me want to spell it phonetically. 🙂
Licensing: I disagree, the license says that if you merge it with other code (which you would need to do to get it into OSX) then you loose the patent protection.
“no patent license is granted: […] or (ii) the combination of the Original Software with other software or devices”
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
NB: This bug exists in the MPL 1.1 that CDDL is derived from so please don’t think that I think that Sun wrote it; it’s just an unfortunate result of Sun having used the MPL in the first place. 🙁
Chris
-
Phipps on your CDDL Questions
Dude, I asked Simon Phipps at Sun about your CDDL queries; he’s a Brit so he’s not entirely Kool-Aid-Enabled, and his response prettymuch confirms what I already suspected, viz: that there is a lot of GNUier-than-thou FUD out there. Of course if you feel no reason to listen to the guy at the top of the Open Source tree at Sun, that’s your prerogative. 😎
If Dtrace is going into FreeBSD, I’m heartened that that, at least, is likely to end up in Darwin eventually.
Simon writes:
CDDL is 100% BSD compatible, to the extent that DTrace is already being implemented in FreeBSD. The patent grant statement simply says that you can’t change the code to need a patent that wasn’t originally granted and then claim patent protection – you don’t lose protection from patents you were originally granted.
Concerning why the GPL was not used, the subject has been covered extensively – not least by me[1]. The OpenSolaris.org FAQ has a little on it[2].
The “isolation” thing is also a false meme – CDDL has not stood in the way of multiple new Unix distros being created from OpenSolaris, including one (Nexenta) that puts the Solaris kernel into Debian.
[1] http blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=failed_as_in_succeeded_wildly
[2] http opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/
-
re: Obligatory ZFS Posting
…und natuerlich werden unsere Freunden auf Deutschland und Oesterreich “Zett-FS” sagen.
Just consider it I18n 🙂
Leave a Reply