There’s been some Friday night kernel drama on the Linux kernel mailing list… Linus Torvalds has expressed regrets for merging the Bcachefs file-system and an ensuing back-and-forth between the file-system maintainer.

      • bastion@feddit.nl
        21·
        3 months ago

        Do your own research, that’s a pretty well-discussed topic, particularly as concerns ZFS.

        • ryannathans@aussie.zone
          02·
          3 months ago

          I’m all over ZFS and I am not aware of any unresolved “licence issues”. It’s like a decade old at this point

          • apt_install_coffee@lemmy.ml
            2·
            3 months ago

            License incompatibility is one big reason OpenZFS is not in-tree for Linux, there is plenty of public discussion about this online.

              • apt_install_coffee@lemmy.ml
                1·
                2 months ago

                Yes, but note that neither the Linux foundation nor OpenZFS are going to put themselves in legal risk on the word of a stack exchange comment, no matter who it’s from. Even if their legal teams all have no issue, Oracle has a reputation for being litigious and the fact that they haven’t resolved the issue once and for all despite the fact they could suggest they’re keeping the possibility of litigation in their back pocket (regardless of if such a case would have merit).

                Canonical has said they don’t think there is an issue and put their money where their mouth was, but they are one of very few to do so.

                • ryannathans@aussie.zone
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  Keen to see how Canonical goes. There’s another one or two distros doing the same. Maybe everyone will wake up and realise they have been fighting over nothing

      • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Not under a license which prohibits also licensing under the GPL. i.e. it has no conditions beyond what the GPL specifies.

            • ryannathans@aussie.zone
              1·
              2 months ago

              There’s no requirement for them to apply to the same file? There’s already blobs in the kernel the gpl doesn’t apply to the source of

              • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
                1·
                2 months ago

                The question was “How do you define GPL compatible?”. The answer to that question has nothing to do with code being split between files. Two licenses are incompatible if they can’t both apply at the same time to the same thing.

                • ryannathans@aussie.zone
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  The two works can live harmoniously together in the same repo, therefore, not incompatible by one definition and the one that matters.

                  There’s already big organisations doing it and they haven’t had any issues