ZFS No Show Down to Licensing Issues
- September 3rd, 2009 - 12.44 am UTC
- Apple Rumour, Mac OS X Leopard, Mac OS X Snow Leopard
- Alex Brooks
During the testing of Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server the much hyped file system ZFS did make a brief appearance, as it did with Mac OS X Leopard client and server. Neither of these operating systems actually shipped with ZFS read or writing capabilities this is partly due to a licensing issue says data storage expert Robin Harris.
Sun prefers the CDDL and may have asked for some extra protections, including Apple’s promise not seek damages should Sun lose the ZFS patent infringement suits initiated by NetApp, that caused Apple to reconsider the business risk of ZFS.
Harris goes onto explain that Sun could release ZFS under a GNU General Public License (GPL) but that would allow its conclusion in other environments, Harris continues saying that Oracle’s imminent acquisition of Sun could bring the ZFS licensing issues to light again.
Comments
rob 3rd September 2009, 06.48 am
The GPL being more open for inclusion into other products in PLAIN WRONG. The CDDL and most of the other open source licenses are far more open than the GPL. The only reason ZFS is not included in Linuxes is that the viral GPL-approach is not compatible to any other license.
The things that hinder Apple from including ZFS are technical ones.
John 3rd September 2009, 17.01 pm
ZFS was what I was waiting for in Snow Leopard! They have worked on so many “under the hood” improvements but left the foundation built on sandy slippery ground! Somehow, please Apple, get a FS that is as good as ZFS – or better, simpler just get ZFS!!!!
skips 3rd September 2009, 23.25 pm
As nice as it might have been to have ZFS, the fact that it must be licensed and the license can be rescinded makes it difficult for Apple use in a manner that “bets the farm.” If they trusted Sun and I suspect that they did, it was possible, but now the IP is controlled by Oracle, whose intentions with respect to this IP have not been defined.
just my opinion and observations — ss
Rzah 5th September 2009, 23.17 pm
I think it’s a little from both columns, I’d also suggest it’s too much feature for a $29 OS.
Personally I think they should roll their own successor to HFS, they have enough smarts and the guy that created BFS works for them.