Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA

[Chavdar Ivanov <ci4ic4%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 21:07, Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> Chavdar Ivanov <ci4ic4%gmail.com@localhost> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:19, Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 06:17:50PM +0200, Hauke Fath wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:46:46 +0200, Marc Baudoin wrote:
> >> > > ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA.
> >> >
> >> > On the same topic, is there a perspective for
> >> >
> >> > file-system ZFS             # Solaris ZFS
> >> >
> >> > (i.e. a monolithic, non-module kernel)?
> >>
> >> I think this is not possible due to licensing issues.
> >
> > IANAL, but as far as I understand it, nothing in the CDDL licence
> > precludes the static inclusion of ZFS into the NetBSD kernel.
> >
> > If someone develops a product on the basis of the NetBSD kernel AND
> > this product includes modifications of the CDDL-licensed parts of the
> > kernel THEN he will be obliged to publish the source code of only the
> > files under CDDL (a file-based license) which have been modified. So
> > it introduces an element of obligation above and beyond one expects to
> > have when using a BSD-licensed software, but does not taint the rest
> > of the system in any way.
> >
> > I personally don't see a problem in having GENERIC+ZFS kernel
> > configuration, if this were technically feasible. But, e.g., if a
> > commercial entity decides to produce a SAN appliance based on NetBSD
> > and using ZFS, and if any CDDL-licensed files have been modified,
> > their source code will have to be produced.
>
> Perhaps true, but if the module scheme works for normal cases, little is
> gained for NetBDS to distribute a kernel like that, and it adds
> complexity thinking about licenses.

Of course.

I was thinking that if ZFS were in the kernel, it might be easier to
get ZFS root.

-- 
----