5 ms·

What is the worst case can happen in this use case? Let's say a NAS company (WD?) takes the linux + zfs and build a NAS incorporate all the zfs features. Who

by tkinom 11y ago

What is the worst case can happen in this use case? Let's say a NAS company (WD?) takes the linux + zfs and build a NAS incorporate all the zfs features. Who will/can/should file a lawsuit against them and on what probable cause? Would/should EFF do it? Why?

lmm 11y ago
> Who will/can/should file a lawsuit against them and on what probable cause? A copyright holder for the linux kernel, on the grounds that they are distributing an unlicensed derivative work thereof (there would be no need to show damages, there are statutory damages; it's definitely unlicensed, the part that's not clear is whether it's a derivative work). It's not really in the EFF's wheelhouse; mjg59 (who holds at least some kernel copyrights) claimed to be talking to the software freedom law center about his options. I'm unsure why he'd regard zfs.ko as more problematic than nvidia.ko (I mean fundamentally end users have the access they need to fix bugs in the ZFS source, the CDDL is basically the same as the GPL, whereas end users cannot fix bugs in the NVidia video drivers, not in some theoretical legal sense but in actual practice), and if the legal theory is correct then it surely applies equally well to both, but he's the one with standing to sue so it's his call. IANAL.
- ploxiln 11y ago
  Theoretically, nvidia.ko never comes in the same dvd / usb-stick / download as the kernel, it's always a separate piece installed by the user later (even if with a helper program). "Super Easy" derivatives of mainstream distros may include nvidia.ko (and libdvdcss etc) in the initial install, but mainstream distros including ubuntu do not. So they could say, if there was some violation of license going on, it wasn't them doing it, because they were not distributing something derived from the linux kernel. They may separately offer some "shim" code and binary under a separate license that the user then combines with the linux kernel headers on their own machine, and does not distribute the combination. That's one of the attempted justifications anyway. So what's more "audacious" here is Ubuntu distributing zfs.ko included in the initial install, and not requiring a dkms-like setup. There's disagreement, even among core kernel developers, about whether nvidia's binary kernel module is OK. The fact that they've gotten away with it for a long time doesn't mean that it's OK, just that it's somewhere between hard and impossible to enforce copyleft (for various reasons worth of a separate post). ref: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/1/411 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/1/411
  - anon4 11y ago
    Then, theoretically, how about distributing the zfs-on-linux source code with the NAS and present a button in the web interface "Install ZFS" which pops up a big "this will install a non-GPL-compliant module" message which everyone just clicks "OK" on and we're done?
    - lmm 11y ago
      This is essentially what DKMS does and how Debian is shipping ZFS. I can only imagine that Ubuntu wants to make it easier that (perhaps it would be hard to have the installer support ZFS as root filesystem without having the binary ZFS module - you'd have to ship a full compiler toolchain as part of the installer?)
gaadd33 11y ago
Seems like starting with something like FreeNAS would be easier and then they have no GPL exposure in the core OS.
nabla9 11y ago
As long as the company publishes any modifications to Linux kernel, everything should be fine.
- tkinom 11y ago
  My main concerns are these: Just like a patent troll can hold a company hostage with a patent, can a "copyleft" troll / lawyers hold a company and users hostage with copyleft lawsuit? If the zfs + linux kernel NAS products become wildly popular, can a lawyer + a kernel src copyright holder sent letter to NAS company + its customers and demand $500K or $1-10K per users to ask them to pay up?
cthalupa 11y ago
An interesting question, and there is at least one storage appliance company that, to my knowledge, has previously been shipping ZFS with their Ubuntu based appliance for some time (Quantastor) Not exactly a company on the size of WD or similar, though.
newman314 11y ago
I was going to try getting a Synology with btrfs but seeing the comments in the other thread has given me pause. Maybe they will take a run at this and make things work with zfs. My ReadyNAS has been a ROCK over the last 11(!!!) years and up until recently was still getting updates. They are a market leader anymore but damn, color me impressed with the level of commitment to updates over the years.

by tkinom 11y ago

lmm 11y ago

> Who will/can/should file a lawsuit against them and on what probable cause? A copyright holder for the linux kernel, on the grounds that they are distributing an unlicensed derivative work thereof (there would be no need to show damages, there are statutory damages; it's definitely unlicensed, the part that's not clear is whether it's a derivative work). It's not really in the EFF's wheelhouse; mjg59 (who holds at least some kernel copyrights) claimed to be talking to the software freedom law center about his options. I'm unsure why he'd regard zfs.ko as more problematic than nvidia.ko (I mean fundamentally end users have the access they need to fix bugs in the ZFS source, the CDDL is basically the same as the GPL, whereas end users cannot fix bugs in the NVidia video drivers, not in some theoretical legal sense but in actual practice), and if the legal theory is correct then it surely applies equally well to both, but he's the one with standing to sue so it's his call. IANAL.

ploxiln 11y ago
Theoretically, nvidia.ko never comes in the same dvd / usb-stick / download as the kernel, it's always a separate piece installed by the user later (even if with a helper program). "Super Easy" derivatives of mainstream distros may include nvidia.ko (and libdvdcss etc) in the initial install, but mainstream distros including ubuntu do not. So they could say, if there was some violation of license going on, it wasn't them doing it, because they were not distributing something derived from the linux kernel. They may separately offer some "shim" code and binary under a separate license that the user then combines with the linux kernel headers on their own machine, and does not distribute the combination. That's one of the attempted justifications anyway. So what's more "audacious" here is Ubuntu distributing zfs.ko included in the initial install, and not requiring a dkms-like setup. There's disagreement, even among core kernel developers, about whether nvidia's binary kernel module is OK. The fact that they've gotten away with it for a long time doesn't mean that it's OK, just that it's somewhere between hard and impossible to enforce copyleft (for various reasons worth of a separate post). ref: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/1/411 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/1/411
- anon4 11y ago
  Then, theoretically, how about distributing the zfs-on-linux source code with the NAS and present a button in the web interface "Install ZFS" which pops up a big "this will install a non-GPL-compliant module" message which everyone just clicks "OK" on and we're done?
  - lmm 11y ago
    This is essentially what DKMS does and how Debian is shipping ZFS. I can only imagine that Ubuntu wants to make it easier that (perhaps it would be hard to have the installer support ZFS as root filesystem without having the binary ZFS module - you'd have to ship a full compiler toolchain as part of the installer?)

gaadd33 11y ago

Seems like starting with something like FreeNAS would be easier and then they have no GPL exposure in the core OS.

nabla9 11y ago

As long as the company publishes any modifications to Linux kernel, everything should be fine.

tkinom 11y ago
My main concerns are these: Just like a patent troll can hold a company hostage with a patent, can a "copyleft" troll / lawyers hold a company and users hostage with copyleft lawsuit? If the zfs + linux kernel NAS products become wildly popular, can a lawyer + a kernel src copyright holder sent letter to NAS company + its customers and demand $500K or $1-10K per users to ask them to pay up?

cthalupa 11y ago

An interesting question, and there is at least one storage appliance company that, to my knowledge, has previously been shipping ZFS with their Ubuntu based appliance for some time (Quantastor) Not exactly a company on the size of WD or similar, though.

newman314 11y ago

I was going to try getting a Synology with btrfs but seeing the comments in the other thread has given me pause. Maybe they will take a run at this and make things work with zfs. My ReadyNAS has been a ROCK over the last 11(!!!) years and up until recently was still getting updates. They are a market leader anymore but damn, color me impressed with the level of commitment to updates over the years.