5 ms·

> 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

> 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]

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]