thelinuxlink.net

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp

Will ZFS and Dtrace make it into Linux now?

Patrick wrote:http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp

Will ZFS and Dtrace make it into Linux now?

would be excellent if they did, its in FreeBSD CURRENT, but i would not recommend using it just yet.

YEAH! GNU/Solaris!

Anyway, I think this is great if it happens. In theory you could email individual Linux driver developers and ask them if they would put their driver under GPLv3 for Solaris. For example you could take the forcedeth driver, if it's authors didn't have a problem with GPLv3, then Solaris could get a version of that driver if the driver developers gave permission.

Patrick wrote:http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp

Will ZFS and Dtrace make it into Linux now?

The license speaks of Sun releasing OpenSolaris under GPLv3, and since GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, because it adds additional restrictions, ZFS and DTrace will not get into Linux unless Linus changes his mind and tries to get the kernel under GPLv3, then it could happen.

Please also keep in mind that this is not an announcement, and you never know with Sun, however I think this is a likely thing to happen.

allix wrote:

Patrick wrote:http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp

Will ZFS and Dtrace make it into Linux now?

would be excellent if they did, its in FreeBSD CURRENT, but i would not recommend using it just yet.

It should be in FreeBSD 7, any idea if they are aiming for a full ZFS port or just part of the features?

[/quote]
It should be in FreeBSD 7, any idea if they are aiming for a full ZFS port or just part of the features?[/quote]

To keep track of FreeBSD 7 without reading mailing lists goto
http://ivoras.sharanet.org/freebsd/freebsd7.html

I am more interested in the concept of merging of the linux software base, HCL, and so forth with the more superior Solaris Kernel. Really, that is half of the reason all of the Solaris admins chose Sol over Tux. The other half was the pretty decent support plans. But now it is getting cheaper to find competent Linux folk that can bail your ass out like Sun could.

Solaris Kernel + GNU + Linux binary support == Friggin Sweet!

I can hope, but now that Sol is going GPL, I thinkt hat my dream actually now has a nuthair of merit at least.

schotty wrote:I am more interested in the concept of merging of the linux software base, HCL, and so forth with the more superior Solaris Kernel. Really, that is half of the reason all of the Solaris admins chose Sol over Tux. The other half was the pretty decent support plans. But now it is getting cheaper to find competent Linux folk that can bail your ass out like Sun could.

Solaris Kernel + GNU + Linux binary support == Friggin Sweet!

I can hope, but now that Sol is going GPL, I thinkt hat my dream actually now has a nuthair of merit at least.

I'm sorry to ruin your dream, but this is NOT gonna be possible, at least in terms of sharing kernel code. Solaris can of course use a GNU userland, but there won't be any device drivers from Linux popping up in Solaris.
The reason for this is that the Linux kernel is licensed as "GPLv2" which means that it's ONLY under GPLv2, nothing else. Sun is considering >GPLv3< for Solaris. GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible because GPLv3 adds further restrictions to ensure more freedoms for the end-user, but the GPLv2 does not allow for adding restrictions etc.
Linus is still not very fond of GPLv2, and even if he changed his mind, the process of moving the kernel to GPLv3 would be ENORMOUS because you'll have to contact every single person who has contributed over the years and convince them to relicense their contributions. This would be extremely hard, although not impossible if a large group of people were involved, examples could be OSDL, Red Hat, IBM etc. etc.

This is why ZFS probably will not get into Linux, unless that Sun really wants it to, because if they did, they could triple license the file system code specifically as CDDL/GPLv2/GPLv3, but they have already said that GPLv2 is not an option for Solaris for some weird-ass reason.

schotty wrote:I am more interested in the concept of merging of the linux software base, HCL, and so forth with the more superior Solaris Kernel. Really, that is half of the reason all of the Solaris admins chose Sol over Tux. The other half was the pretty decent support plans. But now it is getting cheaper to find competent Linux folk that can bail your ass out like Sun could.

Solaris Kernel + GNU + Linux binary support == Friggin Sweet!

I can hope, but now that Sol is going GPL, I thinkt hat my dream actually now has a nuthair of merit at least.

You've heard of Nexenta GNU/Solaris, right? It's basically just Ubuntu on a Solaris kernel.

http://gnusolaris.org

I hate to brake into the thread like this but one of the reasons i LOVE the BSD's is because there is no license considerations when porting applications.
The BSD license has the disadvantage that software does not have to stay free upstream, but developers for the BSD system tend to.

There is a software called beerware created in tongue-and-cheek by the FreeBSD developer Poul-Henning Kamp

"THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
* <phk@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you
* can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think
* this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return Poul-Henning Kamp

if all licenses were that simple

allix wrote:I hate to brake into the thread like this but one of the reasons i LOVE the BSD's is because there is no license considerations when porting applications.

You just HAD to open that can of worms, didn't ya allix!

Well, in terms of application porting, there aren't any problems with the GPL or CDDL. Both KDE and GNOME run without problems on Solaris today.

The problem comes in when you need to merge code, because both the CDDL and the GPL are copyleft licenses, which mean that you do have to use the same license for the stuff you may need to publish if you make modifications. Again, I don't speak lawyer speak so I can't read the CDDL to understand it fully, but I think it's like this, the files you modify has to have source provided, and you can link to non-CDDL code, be it proprietary or free code.
So say you were to take the ZFS code, port it and put it into Linux. Any change to make to GPLed code is considered a derivative work, including linking to GPLed code, and then has to be GPLed as well. This is not a problem with the BSD license, because you can take BSD licensed code, combine it with GPLed code, and the whole package would be GPLed without an issue (Except for BSD zealots claiming that the GPL fans are leeching their code), however since the CDDL require modifications to be publish under it, then you inherently have an incompatibility.

allix wrote:The BSD license has the disadvantage that software does not have to stay free upstream, but developers for the BSD system tend to.

I'd suggest you read this article by David A. Wheeler: GPL, BSD, and NetBSD - why the GPL rocketed Linux to success

allix wrote:There is a software called beerware created in tongue-and-cheek by the FreeBSD developer Poul-Henning Kamp

"THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
* <phk@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you
* can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think
* this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return Poul-Henning Kamp

if all licenses were that simple

If only we didn't need these licenses at all!