• acockworkorange@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 day ago

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

          • caffinatedone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 day 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.

            • ikidd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              13 hours 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.

            • Natanael@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              20 hours 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)