4 ms·

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.

by mjg59 11y ago

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.
- mjg59 11y ago
  If you take the plot from an episode of Star Trek and modify it such that it fits into the Dr Who storyline, you've created a work that's derivative of both Star Trek and Dr Who. Similarly, if you take code from Solaris and modify it such that it tightly integrates with Linux, you've created a work that's derivative of both Solaris and Linux. Since ZFS can only be distributed under the CDDL and since GPLv2 requires all derived works to be distributed under the GPL, you can't satisfy the license.
  - ryao 11y ago
    > If you take the plot from an episode of Star Trek and modify it such that it fits into the Dr Who storyline, you've created a work that's derivative of both Star Trek and Dr Who. Similarly, if you take code from Solaris and modify it such that it tightly integrates with Linux, you've created a work that's derivative of both Solaris and Linux. Since ZFS can only be distributed under the CDDL and since GPLv2 requires all derived works to be distributed under the GPL, you can't satisfy the license. That is analogous to writing a new piece of software intended to be similar to an existing piece of software rather than a port of software under license. Examples of the former include the Linux kernel (meant to be similar to UNIX SVR4) and the wine project (meant to be similar to Windows). If that argument is valid: 1. Oracle is in an excellent position to sue every Linux user not using Oracle Linux, because they own rights to UNIX SVR4, which they inherited from Sun. 2. Microsoft is in an excellent position to sue wine users. 3. James Cameron and 20th century Fox would also be in trouble with Disney for Avatar's similarities to Pocahontas. 4. Probably plenty of other bad things. However, this argument does not apply to ZoL because the code originated in OpenSolaris and is under license and exists as a discrete module, rather than a whole program. So far, the only thing that you have concretely stated is that you met some attorneys who were unwilling to make a decision on legality. You are not an attorney (unless you have obtained a bar number since I last asked) and I have yet to hear that anyone with a bar number that agrees with you. If you want to prohibit people from using software you write with things that you consider to be derivatives when the law does not recognize them as such, you need a license that makes that explicit. Such a license could not be called an open source license under clause #9 of the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Consequently, the GPL is definitely the wrong license for that.

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.

by 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.
mjg59 11y ago
If you take the plot from an episode of Star Trek and modify it such that it fits into the Dr Who storyline, you've created a work that's derivative of both Star Trek and Dr Who. Similarly, if you take code from Solaris and modify it such that it tightly integrates with Linux, you've created a work that's derivative of both Solaris and Linux. Since ZFS can only be distributed under the CDDL and since GPLv2 requires all derived works to be distributed under the GPL, you can't satisfy the license.
- ryao 11y ago
  > If you take the plot from an episode of Star Trek and modify it such that it fits into the Dr Who storyline, you've created a work that's derivative of both Star Trek and Dr Who. Similarly, if you take code from Solaris and modify it such that it tightly integrates with Linux, you've created a work that's derivative of both Solaris and Linux. Since ZFS can only be distributed under the CDDL and since GPLv2 requires all derived works to be distributed under the GPL, you can't satisfy the license. That is analogous to writing a new piece of software intended to be similar to an existing piece of software rather than a port of software under license. Examples of the former include the Linux kernel (meant to be similar to UNIX SVR4) and the wine project (meant to be similar to Windows). If that argument is valid: 1. Oracle is in an excellent position to sue every Linux user not using Oracle Linux, because they own rights to UNIX SVR4, which they inherited from Sun. 2. Microsoft is in an excellent position to sue wine users. 3. James Cameron and 20th century Fox would also be in trouble with Disney for Avatar's similarities to Pocahontas. 4. Probably plenty of other bad things. However, this argument does not apply to ZoL because the code originated in OpenSolaris and is under license and exists as a discrete module, rather than a whole program. So far, the only thing that you have concretely stated is that you met some attorneys who were unwilling to make a decision on legality. You are not an attorney (unless you have obtained a bar number since I last asked) and I have yet to hear that anyone with a bar number that agrees with you. If you want to prohibit people from using software you write with things that you consider to be derivatives when the law does not recognize them as such, you need a license that makes that explicit. Such a license could not be called an open source license under clause #9 of the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Consequently, the GPL is definitely the wrong license for that.