4 ms·
Is Garret asserting that the ZoL /source/ is a derived work of ZFS and linux and thus non-distributable? Or is he saying a binary module compiled from that sou
by dmm 11y ago
Is Garret asserting that the ZoL /source/ is a derived work of ZFS and linux and thus non-distributable?
Or is he saying a binary module compiled from that source is non-distributable?
If the source is redistributable then a DKMS kernel module could be used because it distributes source that is built by the end user.
- dsp1234 11y agoOn twitter[0], he is suggesting that since the binary module is a derivative work (of the linux kernel due to linking to it), according to the GPL, the source code to ZFS must be licensed under a GPL compatible license. However, since Canonical cannot relicense the ZFS code to a GPL-compatible license (since they are not the copyright holder), if they distribute the ZFS module, they would be in violation of the GPL (and thus lose their rights under the GPL to the kernel code). Whether that's actually true appears to be up for a debate depending upon whether or not a binary module is distribution or not, which is why he's suggesting he'll talk to the FSF about possible recourse. [0] - https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/700074164435091456 https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/700074164435091456
- bsder 11y agoI'm not sure it's a good idea for him to try to win this argument. If he wins, binary video card and wifi drivers will all vaporize, too. nVidia would probably love to actually have a good excuse to not support free versions of Linux and only have to support closed, commercial ones.
- ryao 11y agoGiven his track record trying to get Oracle to stop using a GPL exported symbol in their CDDL DTrace module, it is unlikely he is going to do anything here. Orqcle has committed an actual potential violation as far as lawyers with whom I have talked are concerned. Canonical has not.