I saw that as well. I’m thinking that ZFS on Linux is different than the FreeBSD ZFS. I’m curious what other’s thoughts are though.
His reasoning is more about the litigious nature of Oracle, not about the technology itself. For me, I will keep using FreeNAS with ZFS where it is a stable and reliable platform.
Oracle != OpenZFS
FreeBSD (which is FreeNAS is based upon) is currently migrating [with much help from the boys and girls at IX Systems) towards ZoL (ZFS on Linux) which is OpenZFS.
If you have been following the ZFS news you would know that there is a concerted effort being made to bring all the features ZFS has on FreeBSD to Linux and MacOS. As regard to Linux some features are not available because it is run in user space. One can ZFS at the kernel level but requires jumping through some significant hoops. The Open Software Foundation has been an impediment to ZFS on Linux because Open ZFS is licensed under the ADDL not the GPL license. Richard Stallman, a typical blowhard academic, was up in arms that the ADDL does not require the publishing of code you may add and oh yeah heven forbid you make money on it,
OpenZFS was created by Sun Micro Systems prior to being acquired by Oracle. Oracle has a closed source version that incorporates many features developed by an in OpenZFS. A far as Oracle’s lawyers forget about 'em, don’t believe everything in the blogs or the press lots of bovine fecal matter out there.
Correction it is the CDDL Sun Micro Systems licensed OpenZFS under. CDDL = Common Development and Distribution License. The issue is the GPL.