[CentOS] Native ZFS on Linux

Mon Jun 1 12:45:15 UTC 2015
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 06/01/2015 07:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:
>> On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote:
>>>> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is 
>>>> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the 
>>>> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)?  Is it a licensing issue, political, etc?
>>> There is no licensing issue, but there are OpenSource enemies that spread a 
>>> fairy tale about an alleged licensing issue.
>>> The only problem with integrating ZFS into Linux is that the VFS interface from 
>>> Linux is inferior to the one from OpenSolaris and as a result, there is a need 
>>> to first implement missing interfaces.
>>> Jörg
>> Guys ... let's try not to have a license fight again on the list.
>> Sometimes these things get way out of hand.
>> This list is not a place for legal advise .. let's let the attorneys who
>> actually know the law and the maintainers of programs decide what
>> license they use and what it means.
> Could you explain why you did not reply to the mail fropm Chris Adams who 
> introduced a false claim about so called "opinions of a number of lawyers"?
> As mentioned: lawyers explain why there is no problem with ZFS integration. If 
> you don't like useless discussions, you need to prevent people from spreading 
> unverified rumors.
> Jörg

I replied to the last one I saw in the thread at the time of my reply ..
not to assign blame.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20150601/621bc4e2/attachment-0004.sig>