3 ms·
> I take ZFS from Solaris. I rewrite it to work with Linux. In which sense is this not equivalent to my analogy? The examples you're giving are not equivalent,
by ryao 11y ago
> I take ZFS from Solaris. I rewrite it to work with Linux. In which sense is this not equivalent to my analogy? The examples you're giving are not equivalent, because in each case the work was written without deriving from the other copyrighted work.
I take it that you never actually read the ZFSOnLinux source code.
It is not really rewritten. There is a compatibility layer in place to prevent the need to rewrite much of the code and a very small percentage of the original kernel code actually changed to support Linux, but what did change was meant to use for interfaces that are provided by the kernel to allow proprietary modules to be ported, which suggests any license is fine.
However, the claim that writing a brand new TV show script inspired by another forms a derivative work is to claim that writing things from scratch forms a derivative work.
> That's an entirely arbitrary distinction.
It is the distinction lawyers are making.
> No, I said that lawyers had told me that ZoL was an infringing work but that we wouldn't know for sure unless a court decided on it: http://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/general-linux-.. http://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/general-linux-....
Do you have bar numbers of these lawyers? Is there any reason to think that they were thinking that zfs.ko somehow used GPL exported symbols or some other thing that is not actually true that does not involve taking your word for it? I did have one person going to law school tell me that it was a derivative work because of that. He did not think he could claim otherwise after an explanation that the code does not do that.
Given that your legal views are so incredibly divorced from those of actual lawyers with whom I have talked, I am not inclined to believe you when you say that they had no misunderstanding, especially when it seems that you have never actually read the code to be able to be sure of that.
> Nobody wants that.
Your claims are inconsistent with that.
- mjg59 11y ago> It is not really rewritten. It has several direct calls into Linux functionality that don't go via SPL, but it's also unclear that simply adding an abstraction layer is a meaningful mechanism to avoid derivation. > what did change was meant to use for interfaces that are provided by the kernel to allow proprietary modules to be ported There are no such interfaces in Linux. > the claim that writing a brand new TV show script inspired by another forms a derivative work is to claim that writing things from scratch forms a derivative work. I didn't make that claim. The analogy in question involves taking an existing work and modifying it such that it includes components of another work. > It is the distinction lawyers are making. It's the distinction a lawyer that you've spoken to is making. > Do you have bar numbers of these lawyers? Yes. > Is there any reason to think that they were thinking that zfs.ko somehow used GPL exported symbols or some other thing that is not actually true that does not involve taking your word for it? No. > Your claims are inconsistent with that. My claim is that I have reason to believe that, under copyright law, ZoL is a derivative work of Linux and as such is subject to the terms of the GPL. If the final legal determination is that it's not a derivative work then the GPL is irrelevant.