Came across this article <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/linus-torvalds-zfs-statements-arent-right-heres-the-straight-dope/> reporting that Linus Torvalds recommends against using Sun/Oracle’s ZFS with Linux. The licensing issue (on top of Oracle’s infamous litigiousness) is a real concern, but the author also has a problem with Torvalds’ claims over filesystem performance and whether the code base is still being maintained or not. Out of curiosity, I went to read the original discussion thread. Not far along, I came across this <https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpostid=189959> later clarification by Torvalds: > Please, Linus, stop being arrogant and ignorant, read this > release note and tell us why you think ZFS is more of a buzzword > and has no real maintenance. I'm talking about small details like the fact that Oracle owns the copyrights, but turned things closed-source, so the "other" ZFS project is a fork of an old code base. If you are talking about ZFS, you're talking about the Oracle version. Do you think it has a lot of development going on? I don't know. And if you're talking about OpenZFS, then yes, there's clearly maintenance there, but it has all the questions about what happens if Oracle ever decides - again - that "copyright" means something different than anybody else thinks it means. Also the Ars Technica author seemed to feel that the kernel developers closed off certain kernel symbols to non-GPL code out of “spite”, to which Torvalds replies: > Not going out of your way to support ZFS is one thing. That we > completely perfectly understand. Going out of your way to > deliberately break ZFS is another thing. The kernel developers > are being assholes for doing that! We didn't go out of our way to deliberately break anything. But we do occasionally turn symbols that aren't meant to be used outside the kernel into GPL-only, because they have some internal implementation issues. The fact is, the whole point of the GPL is that you're being "paid" in terms of tit-for-tat: we give source code to you for free, but we want source code improvements back. If you don't do that but instead say "I think this is _legal_, but I'm not going to help you" you certainly don't get any help from us. So things that are outside the kernel tree simply do not matter to us. They get absolutely zero attention. We simply don't care. It's that simple. And things that don't do that "give back" have no business talking about us being assholes when we don't care about them.