Open Source Blog

The ability to use ZFS in commercial implementations is central to its value to the open source community, and NetApp has made it very clear that it is only noncommercial users whom they don't intend to pursue.

I'm an open source developer who makes technology decisions at a small startup, and ZFS looked very interesting to us -- interesting enough to consider using Solaris in places we've been an all-Linux shop in the past. If we can't make commercial use of it, though, that kills my reason to use ZFS -- and if I can't use it at work, I won't have an opportunity to be contributing code or bugfixes either, so the OSS side of the project loses out as well.

(We absolutely don't have the budget for NetAppliance hardware -- not even close -- but if any settlement coming out of this allows ZFS to live on as an OSS project suitable for commercial use, that'll give me a much more positive view of the company when we can eventually afford their products than what I'll have if the outcome results in ZFS being commercially usable only by entities which have executed a cross-licensing deal with NetAppliance).

I work in the Research division of a large corportion which shall be nameless, and I'm currently tasked with getting some software we have written (to exploit a supercomputer) onto 'SourceForge'.

The alternative to putting it on 'SourceForge' is to drop it in the waste bin.

We need to move on to the next project, and we hope that someone else (university or big business research) can pick it up and do something with it.

Anyone sueing SUN over an open-source contribution is likely to cause my management to order us to stop work, and leave the software behind the corporate firewall.

That's not a lot of use to anyone.

There's a flaw in that line of reasoning.
Sun IS A PART of the open source community.
If you damage Sun, you cause damage to their customers, AND the open source projects they nurture.

One cannot sue an open source company and claim it is not something against the community.

That is simply shortsighted, or Microsoft-like, your choice.

The way I read it is that NetApp is going after Sun, the company, for actions that Sun have taken, but hasn't yet decided what to do with regards to ZFS itself and other commercial implementations.

As Charles Duffy suggests above, there are many ways this could pan out, including a settlement in which it gets some relief from Sun (or vice versa) and ZFS remains protected.

I maintain that it is wrong to assume that this is an attack on open source per se.

It seems NetApp would have taken this action if ZFS was still proprietary, why should the fact that it is open source make it and Sun untouchable?

Interesting you compare this with Azul, Matthew. That was also an attempted pre-emptive strike by a company in the wrong. Their issue was trade secrets (hiring Sun staff and using their knowledge to create competing products) whereas NetApp's is knowing patent infringement against StorageTek, but both cases involved a confident commercial competitor believing they could harness public opinion to overcome the weakness of their case with PR pressure.

Remember NetApp's ZFS claims have been tacked on later; the attack on ZFS (using at least one patent also used to chill the TUX2 filesystem out of existence) seems intended to discredit Sun in the eyes of the open source community to cover up the real issue. I know you're off Sun at the moment but nonetheless...

Your post is incorrect about ZFS licensing. ZFS is open source. ZFS is licensed under Sun's CDDL license which is an Open Source Initiative ( OSI )approved licensed

ZFS Description - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
CDDL Description - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License
OSI Approved License - http://opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php

Look at the headers to any of the zfs source code and you'll see that's licensed under CDDL - http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/source/

An interesting thread on using ZFS and integrating it in Linux - http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066

Donovan

Net App is just another SCO, trying to scare away competition with useless lawsuits. Why don't they invest in innovation, instead of claiming Sun threatened them. I think what they meant to say was that free software and ZFS threatens them, and it should - I can't afford Network Appliance equipment, and I don't need to any more. That's what they hate, no doubt.

Sun is a huge contributor to the open source community, and suing them is as good as suing the community in my book. Sun has never preemptively sued anyone, vs. NetApp, who tried and failed numerous times.

I hate Net App now, that didn't have to be the case. They chose that outcome. I hope they get buried. They are just another proprietary company that can't compete on quality, now they have to compete with litigation.

Simon, I'm not sure what you are suggesting by stating that I am 'off Sun at the moment", but you should not assume that everything everyone writes about Sun is driven by a personal agenda.

What I do know is that Dave Hitz's description of Sun's attitude and actions in the run up to this legal filing is very similar to the description given by Stephen DeWitt.

That has no bearing on the validity of the legal arguments on either side, and I never suggested it did, but given the massive difference in the accounts given by Hitz and Schwartz, I thought it was relevant.

Donovan,

That was a typo that has been corrected. It should have said, and now does read: "ZFS is *now* an open source project."

Don't you suppose Dave Hitz is aware of that and consciously creating that impression? You're under his spell, but that doesn't mean he's telling the truth :-)

I suppose if I was a Sun employee I'd come to that conclusion too, but as someone who is completely independent I came to my own conclusions.