..neat wee litigation trap, was: zfs-fuse or zfsonlinux
On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:42:36 +0100, Jon wrote in message
<[🔎] 20120510104236.GL8272@debian>:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:22:35AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 May 2012 19:18:28 +0100, Jon wrote in message
> > <[🔎] 20120509181828.GG8272@debian>:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:07:51PM +0100, Lists wrote:
> > > > I'm looking at using ZFS for a box that will serve as a
> > > > storage/backup box. I'm aware of Debian/kFreeBSD, which seems
> > > > to be
> >
> > ..if you're paranoid enough to worry about Debian/GNU Linux,
> > you may also want to consider Debian/GNU Hurd as a third way
> > to rescue your back-up data.
>
> I don't understand your response, here, but I think you may have
> misunderstood mine.
..it is (at least in theory) possible to crack both GNU/Linux and
*/kfreeBSD at the same time, and it is also possible to attack
GNU Hurd at the same time as the former 2, even if I agree with
Microsoft FUD that by extension holds it's less likely because
of the wee windfall that can be had from attacking the decidedly
_small_ etc number of people running GNU Hurd.
But that could change, like it has with GNU Linux.
..bottom line is beavers have multiple lodge exits for a
reason, predators. With enough exits, they escape and
qualify as "paranoid enough." ;o)
> ZFS has been neatly integrated into FreeBSD and there are no license
> incompatibilities. Debian KFreeBSD is arguably the most reliable way
> to use ZFS and Debian together. (The OP's question was based on the
> premise that they definitely NEED ZFS. Perhaps they don't?)
>
> Debian KFreeBSD is a supported architecture for Debian, so you aren't
> wandering 'off reservation' by doing this, and you would be with the
> various zfs-on-linux projects.
>
> However, if you are comfortable and familiar with administering Debian
> GNU/Linux, you might be slightly wary of running KFreeBSD "on the
> metal". Running it as a VM instead gives you the opportunity to use
> your familiar, trusted OS on the "outside", but with the stable and
> supported ZFS system on the "inside".
..aye, but researching OP's 2 links further, I found this
neat wee litigation trap: ;o)
http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue
http://zfs-fuse.net/releases/0.7.0 even has a neat wee box
"License" right next to a neat wee clicky linky box "CDDL"
that I hoped would explain the terms of the CDDL.
..instead, it brought me to the software patent plaintiff
headlined in todays http://groklaw.net/ which fortunately
does have a bunch of reliable links to the CDDL: prrrr ;o)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110810152617279&query=CDDL
http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=CDDL&keyType=phrase&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type=all&author=0&mode=search
...and, to the GPLs: ;o)
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050131065655645
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: