ZFS licensing question

[Patrick Proniewski]

Hello,

Well, I understand this list is mainly interested in implementation  
and tuning, but I'm sure some of you are well informed about licensing  
issues.
Recently, Apple giving up on ZFS has made the headlines. *It appears*  
to be related to the NetApp vs. Sun case (<http://www.netapp.com/us/company/news/press-releases/news_rel_20070905.html 
 >). And *it appears* Sun tried to impose a license that would make  
Apple responsible for IP infringement in case Sun would lose against  
NetApp.

It makes me wonder about the FreeBSD port of ZFS. Do you have further  
informations about the licensing of ZFS technology, and about the case  
of FreeBSD port ?


regards,
patpro

[Kris Kennaway-3]

Patrick Proniewski wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Well, I understand this list is mainly interested in implementation and
> tuning, but I'm sure some of you are well informed about licensing issues.
> Recently, Apple giving up on ZFS has made the headlines. *It appears* to
> be related to the NetApp vs. Sun case
> (<http://www.netapp.com/us/company/news/press-releases/news_rel_20070905.html>).
> And *it appears* Sun tried to impose a license that would make Apple
> responsible for IP infringement in case Sun would lose against NetApp.
>
> It makes me wonder about the FreeBSD port of ZFS. Do you have further
> informations about the licensing of ZFS technology, and about the case
> of FreeBSD port ?

I don't think anyone from FreeBSD has additional details to contribute
about Apple's decision, and as far as we're aware nothing has changed
with respect to ZFS licensing.

Kris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fs@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@..."

[Patrick Proniewski]

On 28 oct. 2009, at 17:30, Kris Kennaway wrote:

> Patrick Proniewski wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Well, I understand this list is mainly interested in implementation  
>> and tuning, but I'm sure some of you are well informed about  
>> licensing issues.
>> Recently, Apple giving up on ZFS has made the headlines. *It  
>> appears* to be related to the NetApp vs. Sun case (<http://www.netapp.com/us/company/news/press-releases/news_rel_20070905.html 
>> >). And *it appears* Sun tried to impose a license that would make  
>> Apple responsible for IP infringement in case Sun would lose  
>> against NetApp.
>> It makes me wonder about the FreeBSD port of ZFS. Do you have  
>> further informations about the licensing of ZFS technology, and  
>> about the case of FreeBSD port ?
>
> I don't think anyone from FreeBSD has additional details to  
> contribute about Apple's decision, and as far as we're aware nothing  
> has changed with respect to ZFS licensing.

Well, I think some people are working for Apple and FreeBSD ;)
May be I should have made my point clearer. My concern is: do you  
think this kind of problem can impact FreeBSD too. Unfortunately, I'm  
not familiar with licenses subtleties and I'm not a lawyer...

regards,
patpro

[Matt Simerson-3]

There is far more too it than has been made public, and all the  
conjecture in the world isn't likely to clear it up for us.

If you post a link to one side of the story, you should at least post  
a link to the other side. Here's a couple updates from Sun's legal  
counsel.

   Oct 2008: http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/zfs/
   Jun 2008: http://blogs.sun.com/dillon/entry/netapp_draft
   Oct 2008: http://blogs.sun.com/dillon/entry/more_on_the_netapp_litigation
   Oct 2008: http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2008/10/current-status.html

It appears that Sun is besting NetApp. Sun has gotten numerous NetApp  
patent claims invalidated, including all claims for one of NetApp's  
self described 'core' patents.  Sun has also had a few of its patent  
claims dismissed, but they have a larger arsenal which which they are  
countersuing. If I were to put some skin in the game, I'd put money on  
Sun.

But what about Apple?

Apple needs a next generation file system, and they need it last year.  
Or 2-3 years ago. Hence Apple's interest in ZFS. But the case is  
already 2 years old and Sun is filing motions to stay the suit for  
even longer, giving the US PTO office time to review and  invalidate  
even more patent claims. If Apple committed to and deployed ZFS, they  
could easily be on the hook for many millions of dollars in licensing  
fees down the road. It could end up costing them far more than  
building a next generation FS for Mac OS X in house.

And what about FreeBSD?

This is what MLP had to say at http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/harvesting_from_a_troll

> First, the basics. Sun indemnifies all its customers against IP  
> claims like this. That is, we've always protected our markets from  
> trolls, so customers can continue to use ZFS without concern for  
> spurious patent and copyright issues. We stand behind our  
> innovation, and our customers.

Matt

On Oct 28, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote:

> Patrick Proniewski wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Well, I understand this list is mainly interested in implementation  
>> and tuning, but I'm sure some of you are well informed about  
>> licensing issues.
>> Recently, Apple giving up on ZFS has made the headlines. *It  
>> appears* to be related to the NetApp vs. Sun case (<http://www.netapp.com/us/company/news/press-releases/news_rel_20070905.html 
>> >). And *it appears* Sun tried to impose a license that would make  
>> Apple responsible for IP infringement in case Sun would lose  
>> against NetApp.
>> It makes me wonder about the FreeBSD port of ZFS. Do you have  
>> further informations about the licensing of ZFS technology, and  
>> about the case of FreeBSD port ?
>
> I don't think anyone from FreeBSD has additional details to  
> contribute about Apple's decision, and as far as we're aware nothing  
> has changed with respect to ZFS licensing.
>
> Kris
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-fs@... mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@..."

_______________________________________________
freebsd-fs@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@..."

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <168A0140-B91E-4F9E-8088-A69A0E17C56A@...>, Matt Simerson write
s:

>> First, the basics. Sun indemnifies all its customers against IP  
>> claims like this. That is, we've always protected our markets [...]

The quality of the protection hinges on conditions:

        1. Sun has to exist and stand by its word.

        2. Sun must have enough money to do so (see 1.)

None of these have 1.0 probability, but what the actual probability
is, is anyones guess, and you will have to make up your own mind.

Poul-Henning

--
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@...         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fs@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@..."

[James R. Van Artsdalen]

There are lies, damn lies, and Corporate Press Releases.

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> The quality of the protection hinges on conditions:
>
> 1. Sun has to exist and stand by its word.
>
> 2. Sun must have enough money to do so (see 1.)

phk is exactly right; in my experience it has always been easier to get
a billion dollar's worth of guarantees from a vendor than to get a
million dollar's worth.

Matt Simerson wrote:
> Apple needs a next generation file system, and they need it last year.

No they don't, not unless there was something in last quarter's results
I missed.

The benefit to FreeBSD is clear: ZFS, coupled with the SIIS driver and
SATA port multipliers, will make it possible to build cheap storage
arrays in the 50 TB and above range using FreeBSD.  The other things are
k00l but it's the huge cost savings I'll pitch to clients once the SIIS
driver is finished.

PS. Even when patent litigation is settled it isn't easy to figure out
who "won" until the 10-K's can be analyzed: post-settlement statements
by everyone are often part of the agreement.  That this has something of
a Motorola/Hitachi feel to it is as far as I'd speculate.

_______________________________________________
freebsd-fs@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@..."

[pluknet]

2009/10/28 James R. Van Artsdalen <james-freebsd-fs2@...>:

> There are lies, damn lies, and Corporate Press Releases.
>
> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> The quality of the protection hinges on conditions:
>>
>>       1. Sun has to exist and stand by its word.
>>
>>       2. Sun must have enough money to do so (see 1.)
>
> phk is exactly right; in my experience it has always been easier to get
> a billion dollar's worth of guarantees from a vendor than to get a
> million dollar's worth.
>
> Matt Simerson wrote:
>> Apple needs a next generation file system, and they need it last year.
>
> No they don't, not unless there was something in last quarter's results
> I missed.

At least Apple is looking for a file system engineer.
http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?method=mExternal.showJob&RID=42559


--
wbr,
pluknet
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fs@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@..."

[Patrick Proniewski]

Hi,

Thanks all for your replies (I'm reading the daily digest).

> If you post a link to one side of the story, you should at least post
> a link to the other side. Here's a couple updates from Sun's legal
> counsel.

Thanks for the links. I only mean to provide fe bits of background,  
but more info is always welcome.


regards,
patpro