top | item 43815812

(no title)

ahl | 10 months ago

It was! And Apple seemed fine with including DTrace under the CDDL. I’m not sure why Apple wanted some additional arrangement but they did.

discuss

order

cryptonector|10 months ago

The NetApp lawsuit. Apple wanted indemnification, and Sun/Oracle did not want to indemnify Apple.

At the time that NetApp filed its lawsuit I blogged about how ZFS was a straightforward evolution of BSD 4.4's log structured filesystem. I didn't know that to be the case historically, that is, I didn't know if Bonwick was inspired by LFS, but I showed how almost in every way ZFS was a simple evolution of LFS. I showed my blog to Jeff to see how he felt about it, and he didn't say much but he did acknowledge it. The point of that blog was to show that there was prior art and that NetApp's lawsuit was worthless. I pointed it out to Sun's general counsel, too.

ethbr1|10 months ago

The argument advanced in the piece isn't without merit -- that ripping out DTrace, if subsequent legal developments demanded it, would be a heck of a lot easier than removing a filesystem that would by then contain massive amounts of customer data.

And given what a litigious jackass Larry Ellison / Oracle is, I can't fault Apple for being nervous.

cryptonector|10 months ago

No, it was that Apple wanted to be indemnified in the event that Sun/Oracle lost the NetApp lawsuit.

mixmastamyk|10 months ago

Ironic since the post above tells the story as LE saying no to Jobs.