7 ms·

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

• 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.
      • lmm 11y ago
        Who holds the copyright on the kernel interfaces that the ZFS module uses?
      • jamiesonbecker 11y ago
        Using the defined interfaces of the kernel does not constitute a derivative work.
        • gillianseed 11y ago
          It's a Linux kernel module running in Linux kernel address space, I'd say there is reason to assume it can be considered a derivative work, and thus a license incompability.
          • tzs 11y ago
            Do you think that there is reason to assume that every program that ran on MS-DOS on an 8086 was a derivative work of MS-DOS? The programs and MS-DOS all ran in the same address space on the 8086.
          • deleted 11y ago
            [deleted]
• mjg59 11y ago
  Whether something is a derivative work or not is incredibly unlikely to be determined by whether it's distributed as a module or linked in.
  • mentat 11y ago
    For at least a decade people have been using that route and have had (at least internal) legal opinions supporting it.
  • ryao 11y ago
    If I take a chapter of a textbook, modify it to be a standalone volume in a collection of books and start distributing it, I am distributing a derived work of the original book, not a derived work of the collection of books. The latter constitutes an aggregation and unless there is some license (superseding doctrine of first sale in the case of books) that prevents it from being redistributed with such things, it is perfectly okay to do that. Similarly, the original code was taken from OpenSolaris and was adapted for Linux. No matter how we change it, it is a derived work of Solaris. Furthermore, it is distributed as part of a mere aggregation, which is okay with OSS under the OSD and also okay with the GPL under the GPL FAQ. The only time you can claim a combined work is formed is when the module is loaded into a running kernel, but the GPL does not restrict non-distribution and the kernel with the module loaded into it is not being distributed. You can argue that GPL advocates did not intend to support a license that allows any of this. However, I expect that you would have trouble finding an attorney that will interpret what the copyright holder thought the terms said to supersede the legal meaning of the terms unless explicitly stated. If you make a license for the kernel that does not allow derived works of other platforms' software to be distributed as ports, you would violate #9 of the OSD and could not call it an open source license: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
    • ryao 11y ago
      > If I take a chapter of a textbook, modify it to be a standalone volume in a collection of books and start distributing it, I am distributing a derived work of the original book, not a derived work of the collection of books. The latter constitutes an aggregation and unless there is some license (superseding doctrine of first sale in the case of books) that prevents it from being redistributed with such things, it is perfectly okay to do that. I should elaborate that you need the original to be under license. Otherwise, you have a problem.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]