ZFS on Neon

[GreyGeek]

I agree, ZFS is a fine file system, but under the CDDL. Btrfs is under the GPLv3. To me, GPL makes all the difference in the word. IF Linux had been under any other license except the GPL it would be like BSD, residing in a backwater of insignificance, being constantly mined for code by proprietary players. BSD coders voluntarily want to allow that, but it brings a penalty that costs them dearly. How many people knew that Microsoft's Win95 & XP IP stack was BSD's code? The only thing gates had to do was include a BSD copyright notice, which it did in a system subdirectory which very few people ever perused. So, BSD coders were even robbed of the acclaim for writing a world class (at the time) IP stack, and Gates never returned any code improvements back to BSD, but made them proprietary in future WinXX releases.

[kubicle]

I agree, ZFS is a fine file system, but under the CDDL. Btrfs is under the GPLv3. To me, GPL makes all the difference in the word. IF Linux had been under any other license except the GPL it would be like BSD, residing in a backwater of insignificance, being constantly mined for code by proprietary players. BSD coders voluntarily want to allow that, but it brings a penalty that costs them dearly. How many people knew that Microsoft's Win95 & XP IP stack was BSD's code? The only thing gates had to do was include a BSD copyright notice, which it did in a system subdirectory which very few people ever perused. So, BSD coders were even robbed of the acclaim for writing a world class (at the time) IP stack, and Gates never returned any code improvements back to BSD, but made them proprietary in future WinXX releases.

I'm a huge fan of the GPL (and other strong copyleft licenses), and can totally agree that it has been a major factor in the success of linux. It will motivate participation by assuring no one can start reaping the code. But I'm also a believer in developers' freedom of choice when it comes to licenses, so if someone specifically wants to allow a more permissive use of their code then I'm not going to judge them.

And note that CDDL is not as permissive as the BSD-license, with CDDL the source will always remain open, so any changes anyone makes (even if they make non-free binaries). If they distribute, they have to release the source so other players can benefit from and use possible improvements/fixes etc. And there are always rational arguments for and against using any particular license, some of them philosophical rather than legal.

Of course, not being GPL compatible is a hindrance in the GPL world of linux, so I can totally agree that it would benefit not only linux, but definitely ZFS and probably even Oracle if ZFS would be relicensed to GPL (or compatible). Relicensing is in the hands of the copyright holder, though, so I'm not that optimistic it will ever happen.