3 ms·

The Linux community already had this discussion over the Andrew Filesystem, which was a proprietary port. That is partly why we have symbols designated as being

by ryao 11y ago

The Linux community already had this discussion over the Andrew Filesystem, which was a proprietary port. That is partly why we have symbols designated as being okay for non-GPL code. As for using headers, few consider them to be subject to copyright and those that do would likely find a fair use case for using them for compatibility. However, complex macros and inline functions are a concern. There are not many that are quite so large that they would be considered non-trivial. So far, I have yet to see any that should pose a problem for legal review, although I have only paid attention to ones used by ZFS. Also, if it is not clear, this was raised inside Gentoo. There was a discussion involving this with myself, the ZoL project lead, the concerned developer and a member of the licensing team who had final call on the matter. The descriptions of what was being done and why it should be okay passed review.

rodgerd 11y ago
> As for using headers, few consider them to be subject to copyright and those that do would likely find a fair use case for using them for compatibility. Except as it stands, Oracle have now won cases in the US courts that designate them copyrightable, have they not?
- ryao 11y ago
  That is restricted to the US, involved whether a compatible implementation could be made using them and offered the possibility that all such implementations were actually fair use. It really is not relevant unless you are discussing making a Linux kernel replacement under a different license using the Linux kernel headers. As far as I last heard from lawyers on this, it is not considered to affect anyone until the legal battle finishes and as far as I can tell, if a oracle manages to say this is not okay, they will be in far deeper trouble over their DTrace module that circumvents GPL symbol exports than ZFSOnLinux that restricts itself to an interface intended to allow proprietary modules.
- zerocrates 11y ago
  Oracle v. Google did break Oracle's way on API copyrightability, but the precedent is from the Federal Circuit (because there were also-appealed patent claims), and they wouldn't end up hearing most subsequent copyright cases... so it's all pretty murky at best. Despite their occasional enthusiasm for overturning the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court denied cert in the case, so this probably won't be settled any time soon.

by ryao 11y ago

rodgerd 11y ago

> As for using headers, few consider them to be subject to copyright and those that do would likely find a fair use case for using them for compatibility. Except as it stands, Oracle have now won cases in the US courts that designate them copyrightable, have they not?

ryao 11y ago
That is restricted to the US, involved whether a compatible implementation could be made using them and offered the possibility that all such implementations were actually fair use. It really is not relevant unless you are discussing making a Linux kernel replacement under a different license using the Linux kernel headers. As far as I last heard from lawyers on this, it is not considered to affect anyone until the legal battle finishes and as far as I can tell, if a oracle manages to say this is not okay, they will be in far deeper trouble over their DTrace module that circumvents GPL symbol exports than ZFSOnLinux that restricts itself to an interface intended to allow proprietary modules.
zerocrates 11y ago
Oracle v. Google did break Oracle's way on API copyrightability, but the precedent is from the Federal Circuit (because there were also-appealed patent claims), and they wouldn't end up hearing most subsequent copyright cases... so it's all pretty murky at best. Despite their occasional enthusiasm for overturning the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court denied cert in the case, so this probably won't be settled any time soon.