• Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
        5·
        4 months ago

        Oracle could change it if they wanted to. (They don’t care though)

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
        4·
        4 months ago

        Thanks, TIL. I always assumed the Open version originated on OpenBSD, and therefore licensed under a BSD license. So TrueNAS is technically violating the licenses by using it in their Linux based systems?

        • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          4 months ago

          Oh Ubuntu even had an edition that defaulted to ZFS. The license violation ship has sailed.

          • caffinatedone@lemmy.worldEnglish
            6·
            4 months ago

            I don’t think that it’s like a patent where the holder has to defend it; Oracle can decide to go after a license violation if they want to.

            I’d imagine that if a real competitor or someone with deeper pockets shipped it, they’d be hearing from the throngs of lawyers that oracle keeps on staff in short order.

            • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
              13·
              4 months ago

              Yeah, the fact that ZFS is in Oracle’s hands is the real crime here. I miss Sun.

            • Natanael@infosec.pub
              1·
              4 months ago

              To be pedantic, it’s trademarks you have to actively defend. With copyright and patents there’s different exceptions, but you can usually sue for at minimum expected license fees (although sometimes you give up the possibility to sue for willful infringement & additional damages if you wait)

            • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              4 months ago

              I guess my point was that if Canonical did it and nothing came of it, and Canonical isn’t poor, probably nothing’s going to come of it. Proxmox has been shipping ZFS for years, as well as the BSDs. Not a peep.