Yes, happily the ZFS license (CDDL) and (star)BSD licenses seem to be compatible. Yay for the BSDs of the world!<p>Unfortunately, most of the OSS/Free Software world is running a Linux kernel whose license (GPLv2) <i>isn't</i> compatible with the CDDL according to current thinking by most of the people who know about these things. End of story, AFAICT. (I mean there's a theoretical possibility of relicensing the Linux kernel, but given the contributor profile it's probably impossible in any practical sense. AFAICT it would be <i>far</i> more likely/practical for ZFS to be re-licensed under a GPL-compatible license if only the corporate overlords were so inclined.)<p>EDIT: Just a minor edit: I didn't mean that it's "unfortunate" that most of the OSS/Free Software world is running Linux. It works pretty damn well. My "unfortunately" remark was merely about the fact that licenses may be (or are) incompatible.
A while back I was considering Freenas and in the documentation/forums I read dire warnings about running ZFS with less than 8 gigabyte of ram. Apparently, this could actually put your data at risk.<p>I was a bit nonplussed by this. The least I would expect from a file system is that it degrades gracefully. I wonder if anyone knows more about this?
This feels very self-serving.<p>There's no need for BSD to comment on their "longstanding relationship" with ZFS if they're only saying "we have it and it works within our framework" versus adding something constructive to the dialog on its licensing in Linux. It's awesome that the BSD and ZFS licenses are compatible and that it works well. It just has nothing to do with the headlines they are addressing.