4 ms·

Even if we ignore the ZFS license itself, the SF Conservancy appears to be arguing that _all_ proprietary kernel modules are GPL violations.

bryanlarsen 11y ago
Exactly. They're arguing the combined work clause, which would automatically rule out all binary-only modules, such as nvidia.ko. Most previous arguments about zfs.ko were about the derived work clause, which is much more grey. I belive that nvidia.ko would be more likely to be ruled a derived work than ZFS.ko, but that's hard to tell. It does seem silly to argue about ZFS in this context. ZFS is open source and much less offensive to kernel developers than nvidia.ko.[1] If nvidia.ko is fine, then so is zfs.ko. If nvidia.ko isn't fine, zfs.ko may or may not be fine. Ubuntu has been shipping nvidia.ko for years. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ
- snuxoll 11y ago
  Of course the argument to be had here is OpenZFS lives completely independent of the Linux kernel, it runs on Illumos and FreeBSD and the availability of a Linux kernel module in no way makes or breaks the project. As such, is it a derived work since it is not dependent on the Linux kernel to exist? This is the argument the Illumos developers make about including the GPL'ed KVM code, KVM does not depend on Illumos to exist, as such does loading the KVM module into an Illumos kernel constitute a derived work? Conveniently, this is also precedent that could be set during the VMWare case the SFC is also perusing - we could either see ZFS relegated to being available anywhere but Linux and binary kernel modules totally banned (bad for nVidia, good for AMD), or a total change in the landscape of open source licensing (for better or worse).
- cjbprime 11y ago
  > Ubuntu has been shipping nvidia.ko for years. Is that true? I thought Ubuntu's support for nvidia.ko involved downloading source code to the local machine and compiling it there, to avoid distributing a GPL violation.
- csirac2 11y ago
  NVidia doesn't ship GPL'd code, and GPL distros don't ship NVidia code. It's the user who downloads it and doesn't redistribute it. This is entirely unlike VMWare, who really did make and ship their own butchered linux distro with big binary blobs planted right in the middle.
davexunit 11y ago
Yes, and I agree with Conservancy here. They are most certainly violations of the intended effect of the GPL, but it remains to be seen if courts agree.
- snuxoll 11y ago
  All going to depend on interpretation of a derived work at the end of the day.
bluejekyll 11y ago
> combine GPL'd software with some other software and distribute the resulting combination I believe the key here is the distribution of the resulting combination. Were you to apply these patches after the distribution of Ubuntu, then would this still apply? Asked another way, if Ubuntu sets up a separate package channel that installs ZFS through a downstream patch via apt, would it be in violation of the license?
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  The GPL as a general case allows you to distribute separate works on the same media. Packaging shouldn't matter much, as far as I understand it either both ways of distributing zfs.ko are legal or both are illegal.
geofft 11y ago
Only binary distributions thereof. See the section called "Is The Analysis Different With Source-Only Distribution?": Pure distribution of source with no binaries is undeniably different. When distributing source code and no binaries, requirements in those sections of GPLv2 and CDDLv1 that cover modification and/or binary (or “Executable”, as CDDLv1 calls it) distribution do not activate. Therefore, the analysis is simpler, and we find no specific clause in either license that prohibits source-only redistribution of Linux and ZFS, even on the same distribution media. (Conservancy mentions the possibility of contributory/indirect infringement, though. Also, proprietary kernel modules written specifically for Linux, or using Linux-specific kernel features, may be GPL violations by virtue of their source code being a derivative work. But in the case of ZFS and several other cases such as OpenAFS and many hardware drivers, the source code is not a derivative work of Linux.)
zanny 11y ago
If the SFC vowed to sue every ARM GPU vendor for their proprietary POS blob drivers on mobile I'd donate a hundred bucks on the spot.
rdtsc 11y ago
I think at some point SF Conservancy feels they can poke Canonical with a legal stick, while doing the same with NVidia (a $5B company) could end up pretty costly and SF Conservancy being marginalized and criticized by the Linux community.

bryanlarsen 11y ago

Exactly. They're arguing the combined work clause, which would automatically rule out all binary-only modules, such as nvidia.ko. Most previous arguments about zfs.ko were about the derived work clause, which is much more grey. I belive that nvidia.ko would be more likely to be ruled a derived work than ZFS.ko, but that's hard to tell. It does seem silly to argue about ZFS in this context. ZFS is open source and much less offensive to kernel developers than nvidia.ko.[1] If nvidia.ko is fine, then so is zfs.ko. If nvidia.ko isn't fine, zfs.ko may or may not be fine. Ubuntu has been shipping nvidia.ko for years. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ

snuxoll 11y ago
Of course the argument to be had here is OpenZFS lives completely independent of the Linux kernel, it runs on Illumos and FreeBSD and the availability of a Linux kernel module in no way makes or breaks the project. As such, is it a derived work since it is not dependent on the Linux kernel to exist? This is the argument the Illumos developers make about including the GPL'ed KVM code, KVM does not depend on Illumos to exist, as such does loading the KVM module into an Illumos kernel constitute a derived work? Conveniently, this is also precedent that could be set during the VMWare case the SFC is also perusing - we could either see ZFS relegated to being available anywhere but Linux and binary kernel modules totally banned (bad for nVidia, good for AMD), or a total change in the landscape of open source licensing (for better or worse).
cjbprime 11y ago
> Ubuntu has been shipping nvidia.ko for years. Is that true? I thought Ubuntu's support for nvidia.ko involved downloading source code to the local machine and compiling it there, to avoid distributing a GPL violation.
csirac2 11y ago
NVidia doesn't ship GPL'd code, and GPL distros don't ship NVidia code. It's the user who downloads it and doesn't redistribute it. This is entirely unlike VMWare, who really did make and ship their own butchered linux distro with big binary blobs planted right in the middle.

davexunit 11y ago

Yes, and I agree with Conservancy here. They are most certainly violations of the intended effect of the GPL, but it remains to be seen if courts agree.

snuxoll 11y ago
All going to depend on interpretation of a derived work at the end of the day.

bluejekyll 11y ago

> combine GPL'd software with some other software and distribute the resulting combination I believe the key here is the distribution of the resulting combination. Were you to apply these patches after the distribution of Ubuntu, then would this still apply? Asked another way, if Ubuntu sets up a separate package channel that installs ZFS through a downstream patch via apt, would it be in violation of the license?

Dylan16807 11y ago
The GPL as a general case allows you to distribute separate works on the same media. Packaging shouldn't matter much, as far as I understand it either both ways of distributing zfs.ko are legal or both are illegal.

geofft 11y ago

Only binary distributions thereof. See the section called "Is The Analysis Different With Source-Only Distribution?": Pure distribution of source with no binaries is undeniably different. When distributing source code and no binaries, requirements in those sections of GPLv2 and CDDLv1 that cover modification and/or binary (or “Executable”, as CDDLv1 calls it) distribution do not activate. Therefore, the analysis is simpler, and we find no specific clause in either license that prohibits source-only redistribution of Linux and ZFS, even on the same distribution media. (Conservancy mentions the possibility of contributory/indirect infringement, though. Also, proprietary kernel modules written specifically for Linux, or using Linux-specific kernel features, may be GPL violations by virtue of their source code being a derivative work. But in the case of ZFS and several other cases such as OpenAFS and many hardware drivers, the source code is not a derivative work of Linux.)

zanny 11y ago

If the SFC vowed to sue every ARM GPU vendor for their proprietary POS blob drivers on mobile I'd donate a hundred bucks on the spot.

rdtsc 11y ago

I think at some point SF Conservancy feels they can poke Canonical with a legal stick, while doing the same with NVidia (a $5B company) could end up pretty costly and SF Conservancy being marginalized and criticized by the Linux community.