|
Replies:
11
-
Last Post:
Oct 23, 2009 8:09 PM
by: anurag_k
|
Threads:
[
Previous
|
Next
]
|
|
Posts:
1
From:
IN
Registered:
8/21/08
|
|
|
|
[zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 2:55 AM
|
|
Hi All,
At KQ Infotech, we have always looked at challenging ourselves by
trying to scope out new technologies. Currently we are porting ZFS to
Linux and would like to share our progress and the challenges faced,
we would also like to know your thoughts/inputs regarding our efforts.
Though we are at early stages of porting ZFS to Linux, we have gained
some insight into how we can move forward. So far we have been
successful in achieving the following milestones.
We have a ZFS building as a module and the following primitive
operations are possible.
* Creating a pool over a file (devices not supported yet)
* Zpool list, remove
* Creating filesystems and mounting them
But we are still not at a stage, where we can create files and read
and write to them. Once we are able to successfully achieve that we
will make the same available for download.
One of the biggest questions around this effort would be “licensing”.
As far as our understanding goes; CDDL doesn’t restrict us from
modifying ZFS code and releasing it. However GPL and CDDL code cannot
be mixed, which implies that ZFS cannot be compiled into Linux Kernel
which is GPL. But we believe the way to get around this issue is to
build ZFS as a module with a CDDL license, it can still be loaded in
the Linux kernel. Though it would be restricted to use the non-GPL
symbols, but as long as that rule is adhered to there is no problem of
legal issues.
For any queries please contact us at zfs at kqinfotech dot com
Stay tuned for latest updates on http://twitter.com/KQInfotech and our
blog http://kqinfotech.wordpress.com.
regards
--
Anand Mitra
CTO, Founder
KQ Infotech
www.kqinfotech.com
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
|
|
|
Darren J Moffat
darrenm@opensolaris....
|
|
|
|
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 3:15 AM
in response to: mitramc
|
|
Anand Mitra wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> At KQ Infotech, we have always looked at challenging ourselves by
> trying to scope out new technologies. Currently we are porting ZFS to
> Linux and would like to share our progress and the challenges faced,
> we would also like to know your thoughts/inputs regarding our efforts.
>
> Though we are at early stages of porting ZFS to Linux, we have gained
> some insight into how we can move forward. So far we have been
> successful in achieving the following milestones.
>
> We have a ZFS building as a module and the following primitive
> operations are possible.
>
> * Creating a pool over a file (devices not supported yet)
> * Zpool list, remove
> * Creating filesystems and mounting them
>
> But we are still not at a stage, where we can create files and read
> and write to them. Once we are able to successfully achieve that we
> will make the same available for download.
That is great process thanks for sharing. Why not share the source now
so that others can help you ?
> One of the biggest questions around this effort would be “licensing”.
> As far as our understanding goes; CDDL doesn’t restrict us from
> modifying ZFS code and releasing it. However GPL and CDDL code cannot
> be mixed, which implies that ZFS cannot be compiled into Linux Kernel
> which is GPL. But we believe the way to get around this issue is to
> build ZFS as a module with a CDDL license, it can still be loaded in
> the Linux kernel. Though it would be restricted to use the non-GPL
> symbols, but as long as that rule is adhered to there is no problem of
> legal issues.
That is my personal understanding as well, however this is not legal
advice and I am not qualified to (or even wish to) give it in any case.
Good luck with the port.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 3:44 AM
in response to: Darren J Moffat
|
|
Darren J Moffat <darrenm at opensolaris dot org> wrote:
> > One of the biggest questions around this effort would be ?licensing?.
> > As far as our understanding goes; CDDL doesn?t restrict us from
> > modifying ZFS code and releasing it. However GPL and CDDL code cannot
> > be mixed, which implies that ZFS cannot be compiled into Linux Kernel
> > which is GPL. But we believe the way to get around this issue is to
> > build ZFS as a module with a CDDL license, it can still be loaded in
> > the Linux kernel. Though it would be restricted to use the non-GPL
> > symbols, but as long as that rule is adhered to there is no problem of
> > legal issues.
>
> That is my personal understanding as well, however this is not legal
> advice and I am not qualified to (or even wish to) give it in any case.
>From what I have been told by various lawyers, as long as ZFS is a separate
work (which means that you cannot tell other people that you mixed the "work"
Linux-kernel with ZFS) there is no legal problem. If you like to ask a lawyer,
be careful to ask an independent lawyer and not the SFLC (which is
unfortunately giving biased advise).
I good choice for an independent lawyer seems to be Lawrence Rosen:
Check e.g. http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
and http://www.rosenlaw.com/
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg dot schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
719
From:
US
Registered:
8/19/08
|
|
|
|
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 8:40 AM
in response to: mitramc
|
|
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Anand Mitra wrote:
>
> One of the biggest questions around this effort would be “licensing”.
> As far as our understanding goes; CDDL doesn’t restrict us from
> modifying ZFS code and releasing it. However GPL and CDDL code cannot
> be mixed, which implies that ZFS cannot be compiled into Linux Kernel
> which is GPL. But we believe the way to get around this issue is to
> build ZFS as a module with a CDDL license, it can still be loaded in
> the Linux kernel. Though it would be restricted to use the non-GPL
> symbols, but as long as that rule is adhered to there is no problem of
> legal issues.
The legal issues surrounding GPLv2 is what constitutes the "Program"
and "work based on the Program". In the case of Linux, the "Program"
is usually the Linux kernel, and things like device drivers become a
"work based on the Program".
Conjoining of source code is not really the issue. The issue is what
constitutes the "Program".
About 10 years ago I had a long discussion with RMS and the
(presumably) injured party related to dynamically loading a module
linked to GPLv2 code into our application. RMS felt that loading that
module caused the entire work to become a "work based on the Program"
while I felt that the module was the "work based on the Program" but
that the rest of our application was not since that module could be
deleted without impact to the application.
Regardless, it has always seemed to me that (with sufficient care), a
loadable module can be developed which has no linkages to other code,
yet can still be successfully loaded and used. In this case it seems
that the module could be loaded into the Linux kernel without itself
being distributed under GPL terms.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple dot dallas dot tx dot us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
311
From:
Registered:
6/8/08
|
|
|
|
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 9:57 AM
in response to: bfriesen
|
|
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Anand Mitra wrote:
>>
>> One of the biggest questions around this effort would be “licensing”.
>> As far as our understanding goes; CDDL doesn’t restrict us from
>> modifying ZFS code and releasing it. However GPL and CDDL code cannot
>> be mixed, which implies that ZFS cannot be compiled into Linux Kernel
>> which is GPL. But we believe the way to get around this issue is to
>> build ZFS as a module with a CDDL license, it can still be loaded in
>> the Linux kernel. Though it would be restricted to use the non-GPL
>> symbols, but as long as that rule is adhered to there is no problem of
>> legal issues.
>
> The legal issues surrounding GPLv2 is what constitutes the "Program"
> and "work based on the Program". In the case of Linux, the "Program"
> is usually the Linux kernel, and things like device drivers become a
> "work based on the Program".
>
> Conjoining of source code is not really the issue. The issue is what
> constitutes the "Program".
>
> About 10 years ago I had a long discussion with RMS and the
> (presumably) injured party related to dynamically loading a module
> linked to GPLv2 code into our application. RMS felt that loading that
> module caused the entire work to become a "work based on the Program"
> while I felt that the module was the "work based on the Program" but
> that the rest of our application was not since that module could be
> deleted without impact to the application.
>
> Regardless, it has always seemed to me that (with sufficient care), a
> loadable module can be developed which has no linkages to other code,
> yet can still be successfully loaded and used. In this case it seems
> that the module could be loaded into the Linux kernel without itself
> being distributed under GPL terms.
>
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I could be very
wrong about this.
Along these lines, it's always struck me that most of the restrictions
of the GPL fall on the entity who distrbutes the 'work' in question.
I would thinkthat distributing the source to a separate original work
for a module, leaves that responsibility up to who-ever compiles it and
loads it. This means the end-users, as long as they never distribute
what they create, are (mostly?) unaffected by the Kernel's GPL, and if
they do distribute it, the burden is on them.
Arguably that line might even be shifted from the act of compiling it,
to the act of actually loading (linking) it into the Kernel, so that
distributing a compiled module might even work the same way. I'm not so
sure about this though. Presumably compiling it before distribution
would require the use of include files from the kernel, and that seems a
grey area to me. Maybe clean room include files could be created?
-Kyle
> Bob
> --
> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen at simple dot dallas dot tx dot us,
> http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
719
From:
US
Registered:
8/19/08
|
|
|
|
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 10:22 AM
in response to: kjmcdona
|
|
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Kyle McDonald wrote:
>
> Along these lines, it's always struck me that most of the restrictions of the
> GPL fall on the entity who distrbutes the 'work' in question.
A careful reading of GPLv2 shows that restrictions only apply when
distributing binaries.
> I would thinkthat distributing the source to a separate original work for a
> module, leaves that responsibility up to who-ever compiles it and loads it.
> This means the end-users, as long as they never distribute what they create,
> are (mostly?) unaffected by the Kernel's GPL, and if they do distribute it,
> the burden is on them.
If the end user builds from source then there are no GPL license
issues whatsoever. This is the nature of "free" software.
> Arguably that line might even be shifted from the act of compiling it, to the
> act of actually loading (linking) it into the Kernel, so that distributing a
> compiled module might even work the same way. I'm not so sure about this
> though. Presumably compiling it before distribution would require the use of
> include files from the kernel, and that seems a grey area to me. Maybe clean
> room include files could be created?
This is where the lawyers get involved. :-)
There are a few vendors who have managed to distribute proprietary
drivers as binaries for Linux. Nvidia is one such vendor.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple dot dallas dot tx dot us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
311
From:
Registered:
6/8/08
|
|
|
|
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 10:32 AM
in response to: bfriesen
|
|
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Kyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>> Along these lines, it's always struck me that most of the
>> restrictions of the GPL fall on the entity who distrbutes the 'work'
>> in question.
>
> A careful reading of GPLv2 shows that restrictions only apply when
> distributing binaries.
>
>> I would thinkthat distributing the source to a separate original work
>> for a module, leaves that responsibility up to who-ever compiles it
>> and loads it. This means the end-users, as long as they never
>> distribute what they create, are (mostly?) unaffected by the Kernel's
>> GPL, and if they do distribute it, the burden is on them.
>
> If the end user builds from source then there are no GPL license
> issues whatsoever. This is the nature of "free" software.
>
>> Arguably that line might even be shifted from the act of compiling
>> it, to the act of actually loading (linking) it into the Kernel, so
>> that distributing a compiled module might even work the same way. I'm
>> not so sure about this though. Presumably compiling it before
>> distribution would require the use of include files from the kernel,
>> and that seems a grey area to me. Maybe clean room include files
>> could be created?
>
> This is where the lawyers get involved. :-)
>
> There are a few vendors who have managed to distribute proprietary
> drivers as binaries for Linux. Nvidia is one such vendor.
Exactly. I can think of several Companies that do the same.
Packaging it in a single kernel RPM, might be too close for comfort, but
packaging it in it's own optionally installed RPM, and including that on
the distribution DVD should also be safe - There is a cluase that allows
non-GPL works to be distributed on the same media.
-Kyle
>
> Bob
> --
> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen at simple dot dallas dot tx dot us,
> http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 11:46 AM
in response to: bfriesen
|
|
Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen at simple dot dallas dot tx dot us> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Kyle McDonald wrote:
> >
> > Along these lines, it's always struck me that most of the restrictions of the
> > GPL fall on the entity who distrbutes the 'work' in question.
>
> A careful reading of GPLv2 shows that restrictions only apply when
> distributing binaries.
These "restrictions" in substance require you to that you need to make
everything (except things that wre usually distributed with the system)
available to allow a recompilation (including linking) for a GPLd work.
You have to do this in case that you ship binaries from the GPLd work.
If you ship a ZFS binary, I see no reason why someone could try to argue
that you ship binaries from GPLd code ;-)
> There are a few vendors who have managed to distribute proprietary
> drivers as binaries for Linux. Nvidia is one such vendor.
But ZFS is no proprietary driver, it is OSS.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg dot schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
279
From:
US
Registered:
7/7/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 10:30 AM
in response to: kjmcdona
|
|
On Fri, October 23, 2009 11:57, Kyle McDonald wrote:
>
> Along these lines, it's always struck me that most of the restrictions
> of the GPL fall on the entity who distrbutes the 'work' in question.
>
> I would thinkthat distributing the source to a separate original work
> for a module, leaves that responsibility up to who-ever compiles it and
> loads it. This means the end-users, as long as they never distribute
> what they create, are (mostly?) unaffected by the Kernel's GPL, and if
> they do distribute it, the burden is on them.
The problem with this, I think, is that to be used by any significant
number of users, the module has to be included in a distribution, not just
distributed by itself. (And the different distributions have their own
policies on what they will and won't consider including in terms of
licenses.)
I am also not a lawyer. And I suspect that one important answer to many
of these questions is that the issues aren't totally clear and there isn't
precedent in case law to guide our understanding much yet. Most of these
things haven't been litigated even once yet.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 11:50 AM
in response to: dd-b
|
|
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> The problem with this, I think, is that to be used by any significant
> number of users, the module has to be included in a distribution, not just
> distributed by itself. (And the different distributions have their own
> policies on what they will and won't consider including in terms of
> licenses.)
For this argument, I recommend to read the OpenSource Definition at:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php in special look at section 9.
The FSF grants you that the GPL is an OSS compliant license, so there is no
difference between shipping ZFS separately and shipping it as part of a distro.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg dot schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
Registered:
10/21/09
|
|
|
|
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 8:09 PM
in response to: joerg
|
|
Hi Joerg, Thanks for this clarification. We understand that we can distribute ZFS binary under a non GPL license, as long as it does not use GPL symbols. Our plan regarding ZFS is to first port it to Linux kernel and then make its binary distributions available for various different distributions of Linux. These binary distribution will be in form of loadable kernel modules and commands.
Once we get ready with ZFS port then we will start sharing our plans for its binary distributions. Feel free to contact us if anyone is interested in ZFS port on specific linux distribution. Regards, Anurag.
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg dot Schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de> wrote:
"David Dyer-Bennet" < dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> The problem with this, I think, is that to be used by any significant
> number of users, the module has to be included in a distribution, not just
> distributed by itself. (And the different distributions have their own
> policies on what they will and won't consider including in terms of
> licenses.)
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php in special look at section 9.
The FSF grants you that the GPL is an OSS compliant license, so there is no
difference between shipping ZFS separately and shipping it as part of a distro.
-- Anurag Agarwal CEO, Founder KQ Infotech, Pune www.kqinfotech.com9881254401 Coordi nator Akshar Bharati
www.aksharbharati.orgSpreading joy through reading
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS port to Linux
Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 11:39 AM
in response to: kjmcdona
|
|
Kyle McDonald <KMcDonald at Egenera dot COM> wrote:
> Arguably that line might even be shifted from the act of compiling it,
> to the act of actually loading (linking) it into the Kernel, so that
> distributing a compiled module might even work the same way. I'm not so
> sure about this though. Presumably compiling it before distribution
> would require the use of include files from the kernel, and that seems a
> grey area to me. Maybe clean room include files could be created?
In Germany/Europe, we have something called "Wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat",
in the USA, there is "fair use". For this reason, I don't believe that
using include files or calling kernel functions is a problem.
Also note that the FSF was asked by the Open Source Initative on whether
the GPL follows the 10 rules from the OSS definition at:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
The FSF did reply to the OSI that the GPL has to interpreted in a way that
makes it OSS compliant.
I would like to direct you in special to section 9 of the OSS definition.
People who claim to see problems usually ignore the rules from the OSS
definition or from the Copyright law.
Also, looking at the substanciations of the adjucations from the lawsuits
driven by Harald Welte shows that the German judges have the same doubts
about the legality of many claims from the GPL as you see in the GPL review
from Lawrence Rosen in http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
I would be relaxed even if I did plan to ship ZFS binaries for Linux.
If in doubt, ask a specialized completely independend lawyer.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg dot schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
