7 ms·

For those who missed it, Debian Project Leader Neil McGovern gives details [1] about how licensing issues were resolved so that ZFS can be in Debian now. It is

• cjbprime 11y ago
  Though that's not relevant to this news -- Ubuntu isn't using DKMS, they put it directly into their kernel tree, violating GPLv2.
  • baldfat 11y ago
    OpenZFS ! I can't see why this has blown up as a violation when people didn't actually read the announcement. EDIT : ZFS is licensed under the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), and the Linux kernel is licensed under the GNU General Public License Version 2 (GPLv2). While both are free open source licenses they are restrictive licenses. The combination of them causes problems because it prevents using pieces of code exclusively available under one license with pieces of code exclusively available under the other in the same binary. In the case of the kernel, this prevents us from distributing ZFS as part of the kernel binary. However, there is nothing in either license that prevents distributing it in the form of a binary module or in the form of source code. http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page
    • throwaway2048 11y ago
      OpenZFS is CDDL liscensed and GPL incompatable.
      • ryao 11y ago
        Only if you build it into the kernel binary image loaded by the bootloader. Otherwise, it is an independent module.
      • jackbravo 11y ago
        Here is another post from the parent about this issue specificaly: - http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/02/zfs-licensing-and-linux.html http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/02/zfs-licensing-and-lin... "We at Canonical have conducted a legal review, including discussion with the industry's leading software freedom legal counsel, of the licenses that apply to the Linux kernel and to ZFS. And in doing so, we have concluded that we are acting within the rights granted and in compliance with their terms of both of those licenses."
      • baldfat 11y ago
        > However, there is nothing in either license CDDL GPL that prevents distributing it in the form of a binary module or in the form of source code. http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIss http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIss
        • mjg59 11y ago
          This would be true if the resulting work were not a derivative work of the GPLed kernel. There's plenty of solid legal opinion that it is, and if you accept that then the GPL absolutely prevents distributing it in the form of a binary module.
        • l1ambda 11y ago
          "And zfs.ko, as a self-contained file system module, is clearly not a derivative work of the Linux kernel but rather quite obviously a derivative work of OpenZFS and OpenSolaris. Equivalent exceptions have existed for many years, for various other stand alone, self-contained, non-GPL and even proprietary (hi, nvidia.ko) kernel modules."
        • TimWolla 11y ago
          Sorry, I downvoted you by accident, while focusing my browser window.
  • mrb 11y ago
    No, Ubuntu may have put the ZFS source in the kernel tree, but they still ship it to endusers as a separate kernel module and separate Ubuntu package (edit: the separate package is "zfsutils-linux" for the userspace code) AFAIK to violate the GPL they would have to ship ZFS compiled code in the kernel image, but this is not what they are doing.
    • cjbprime 11y ago
      > Well, Ubuntu may have put the ZFS source in the kernel tree, but they still ship it to endusers as a separate kernel module and separate Ubuntu package. No, they aren't using a separate Ubuntu package, it's gone straight into the main kernel repo. > AFAIK to violate the GPL they would have to ship ZFS compiled code in the kernel image, but this is not what they are doing. You can violate the GPL inside a kernel module that you distribute.
      • jamiesonbecker 11y ago
        > No, they aren't using a separate Ubuntu package, it's gone straight into the main kernel repo. How Ubuntu packages is irrelevant. What matters under the GPL is how the module is linked into the kernel. > You can violate the GPL inside a kernel module that you distribute. Of course, but they're not doing that. For example, you could violate the GPL by including GPL'ed code in a kernel module under a more restrictive license. There's a lot more detail here: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Module-HOWTO/copyright.html http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Module-HOWTO/copyright.html
        • bryanlarsen 11y ago
          What matters under the Copyright law (and thus the GPL) is whether the module is a derivative work of the Linux kernel or not. ZFS was originally created for Solaris, and works on multiple operating systems. So ZFS itself is obviously not a Linux derivative. If the original ZFS could be directly linked with the Linux kernel without modifications, it still wouldn't be a Linux derivative. But ZFS had to be modified to work with Linux. It can be argued that those modifications are Linux derivatives. We haven't had a definitive ruling on this yet. ZFS from Solaris / BSD --> not a Linux derivative, even if it was directly linked into Linux. ZFS with trivial modifications to work with Linux --> not a Linux derivative ZFS with extensive modifications to work with Linux --> judge's ruling required The only reason that linking matters is because Linus's statement that binary modules are OK would have some weight with the judge. However, Linus is not the only copyright holder of the Linux kernel, and other copyright holders have disagreed with Linus on this statement.
  • jamiesonbecker 11y ago
    This appears to be inaccurate. They appear to be distributing it as a binary module, outside of the kernel tree, just like many other binary-only kernel modules. See zfs.ko here: http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/02/zfs-is-fs-for-containers-in-ubuntu-1604.html http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/02/zfs-is-fs-for-contain... "However, there is nothing in either license that prevents distributing it in the form of a binary module or in the form of source code.": http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue The binary kernel image is a separate issue from the kernel packages (deb); they could include multiple files in a kernel package (deb) that are licensed under different licenses.
    • awalton 11y ago
      Regardless of how the binary is shipped (which could be legal), their aggregation of the source is likely not, since it almost certainly is a derivative work at that point. The fact they have a public git repo where the two codebases touch is probably enough to bait a lawsuit from Oracle, in that they're distributing CDDL code in a way that is against its license. There's a reason LLNL developed their branch out-of-tree - it's just not worth the legal headaches to aggregate the source like Canonical just did.
      • hhw 11y ago
        The CDDL does not prevent ZFS from being used in Linux. It's the GPL that prevents using CDDL code in the kernel. Oracle doesn't have any grounds to sue based on their IP. They would only be able to sue on behalf of Linux, and violation of the GPL. Although I wouldn't rule that out, it's somewhat less likely to happen. On the other hand, I suspect RMS isn't too happy with this turn of events. The sfconservancy may be the more likely party to bring a lawsuit. I'm curious to see either of them comment on the situation.
        • l1ambda 11y ago
          The GPL doesn't even really prevent it, the only clause is a "derived work" which is quite a stretch that a court would find a module to be such a thing.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • ryao 11y ago
    The GPLv2 does not restrict placing things under GPLv2 incompatible in the same tree. It only restricts distribution of binaries that are derivative works under copyright law.