7 ms·

in this context, Oracle could make everyone's life easier by waving their magic relicensing wand. Well, so could the linux developers by relicensing to MIT. T

by dsp1234 11y ago

in this context, Oracle could make everyone's life easier by waving their magic relicensing wand. Well, so could the linux developers by relicensing to MIT. That's not much of an argument. Additionally, I'd still love to see an actual court case with regards to the GPL here. Licensing is always murky, because almost none of it has been tested directly in the courts. Thus the only legal opinions we have are from people who have a vested interest in the outcome one way or another. Let a court solve it once and for all please. In particular, I'd love to have a 100% lock on whether a binary module that links to the kernel is actually a derivative work or not.

ajross 11y ago
The "linux developers" aren't a single entity. You'd need a separate release from theoretically every copyright holder (or a really good legal argument for a subset that defines all the conflicting APIs). The point here was practical, not moral. Linux, in practice, can't relicense the kernel. Oracle, in practice, can relicense ZFS. Thus the "magic wand" comment.
- dsp1234 11y ago
  Does Oracle own the code for all of the existent OpenZFS code that Canonical imported? If not, then doesn't there exist the same issue that all of the developers would also need to relicense?
  - ori_b 11y ago
    Companies generally require copyright assignment.
  - ajross 11y ago
    Arrgh. The same issue in principle, but not in practice. "All the developers" of OpenZFS are Oracle Corporation, plus a few dozen other folks we can grep from the commit log. And if they don't consent and Oracle does, surely the community can duplicate the effort quickly. In practice (that word again) all the meaningful copyright to ZFS sits inside Oracle headquarters. It's just not the same. (Also, as another poster points out, it's possible that all OpenZFS copyright is already assigned to Oracle -- I have no particular knowledge)
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      No need to "Arrgh.". I'm asking serious questions that seem relevant, in which I'm interesting in getting actual opinions. And if they don't consent and Oracle does, surely the community can duplicate the effort quickly. it's possible that all OpenZFS copyright is already assigned to Oracle -- I have no particular knowledge As a reference, the AUTHORS[0] file from the 'zfs on linux' project that was imported into ubuntu lists 73 authors not including the Oracle developers, which appear to be both individuals (gmail accounts, etc) and multiple individual businesses (nexenta, ovh, etc) This still seems to fall in to the category of "It's must be easy for you, because I could totally do it in 2 hours" that developers (such as myself) sometimes fall into where a task is deemed 'easy' because the complexity is hidden. It really seems like neither could easily relicense, so there is no magic wand. [0] - http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git/diff/zfs/AUTHORS?id=b65ce14d3445e8fe69b5d59aaaf2699319714179 http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git/diff/z...
      - ajross 11y ago
        Sorry, I'm compelled to emit another "arrgh". Look, ZFS on linux is a comparatively small community project with a comparatively small number of developers as such things go. To argue that this requires significant hassle to relicense is... probably correct. If Oracle were to relicense ZFS under GPLv2, the community would have to do some work (in the worst case asymptote: they'd have to duplicate the work that's already been done). To argue that this is somehow of equivalent complexity to relicensing the entire Linux kernel is... I dunno, I've used up my "arrgh" for this post. Seriously, I don't understand what you're arguing here.
        dsp1234 11y ago
        Seriously, I don't understand what you're arguing here. I'll try to be a little clearer, but it's basically what I started with and ended with (which you actually appear to agree with) 1.) SFC says 'in this context, Oracle could make everyone's life easier by waving their magic relicensing wand' 2.) I say 'That's not much of an argument.' 3.) I say 'lists 73 authors not including the Oracle developers, which appear to be both individuals (gmail accounts, etc) and multiple individual businesses (nexenta, ovh, etc)' 4.) I say 'It really seems like neither could easily relicense, so there is no magic wand.' In other words, there is no 'magic wand' because even if Oracle magically did there thing it would not fix the issue that FSC has with Canonical because the actual 'ZFS on Linux' code would still be licensed as CDDL. So it's 'not much of an argument' because it would be hard (if even possible) to get every ZoL contributor to relicense, and thus doesn't solve the problem. To argue that this is somehow of equivalent complexity You seem to be getting stuck on some issue of relicensing being equivalent. From a mathematical point of view, I'm sure you could assign some probability to both events (with Linux relicensing having a smaller chance), but it seems like for all intents and purposes, it's zero (even if Oracle relicensed). Do two events have to have equivalent complexity in order to be basically irrelevant as FSC argument? Seems to me like it's just FSC finger-pointing as rhetorical trick (and thus my pointing out it's lack of merit)
  - dap 11y ago
    No. Despite what other replies to your post have said, several companies (and many individuals) have contributed large pieces to ZFS, and they still hold copyright.
    - carussell 11y ago
      Unless a project published under CDDL includes a conspicuous notice saying that no future versions published by Sun shall apply to the software, then the project is totally at the whim of Sun, who is allowed to relicense it under whichever terms it wants, at any time. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=11177827 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=11177827
- lmm 11y ago
  To treat this as Oracle's fault would be to reward Linux for sabotaging their own ability to relicense through a haphazard copyright policy and resulting murky ownership. It's not like some external force prevents Linux from relicensing. They've made their own bed.
dmm 11y ago
> Well, so could the linux developers by relicensing to MIT. The majority of the zfs sources are owned by Oracle, one entity. The linux kernel has many copyright owners and it would require the permission of nearly all of them to relicense the kernel. That makes it a different situation.
- ryao 11y ago
  That might no longer be true. There has been an enormous amount of development since Oracle killed OpenSolaris, such that Oracle is unlikely to remain the majority copyright holder in the future and at some point, there will be no majority copyright holder. That might have already happened. So far, no one has checked.
  - d_b 11y ago
    yes, lets all base our understandings on shaky legal speculation.
    - ryao 11y ago
      > yes, lets all base our understandings on shaky legal speculation. That is what the SFC did when it suggested that Oracle was unilaterally capable of changing the license of ZFSOnLinux.
      - d_b 11y ago
        And by your logic, also what Canonical did. Wee! Why are you still commenting with legal speculation? You realise your name is attached to it, and you are potentially liable for misleading people?
        ryao 11y ago
        If I could go back in time and change what I have written, I would correct a few typos, but leave everything I said otherwise unchanged. That being said, it is clear that your account was made for the sole purpose of replying to me. Would you care to put your name behind your comments in a manner that can be independently verified? I have trouble viewing those that do not distinguish themselves from anonymous trolls as anything but anonymous trolls.
Avshalom 11y ago
On one hand a court decision would solve it once and for all on the other hand who the hell are we gonna find that A) is actually qualified to judge this sort of thing B) doesn't have a vested interest in one way or another. On the gripping hand it wouldn't actually solve anything because lawyers will continually argue that this case isn't covered by that precedent.
- dsp1234 11y ago
  This is a copyright issue just like any other. Thus the normal court system should be able to make a decision one way or the other. If the reality is that literally no one is capable of adjudicating this issue, then there is literally no teeth to the GPL since who could make a decision on it. I believe that's not really the case though. And of course lawyers are always going to argue, that's literally their job after all. However, having some actual solid ground here would be helpful since "exceptions" abound, and it's basically "if we like you or we're forced to do because you have market power (nvidia), then it's totally cool". Land on the wrong side of that and you're getting bashed (again note the difference between Canonical distributing zfs vs nvidia's graphics binary).
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    >If the reality is that literally no one is capable of adjudicating this issue, then there is literally no teeth to the GPL since who could make a decision on it. Not true at all. Most claims of GPL violation are very straightforward.
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      True, but we were not discussing general GPL violations. But specifically the murkiness of the binary kernel module 'exceptions' (or if they are not actually derivative works in the first place, and thus not really 'exceptions', but rights). That's what 'this issue' refers to above.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
dragonwriter 11y ago
Another funny thing about this line: > in this context, Oracle could make everyone's life easier by waving their magic relicensing wand. SF Conservancy is stating that they have grounds and willingness -- though only as a "last resort" -- to tie Canonical, one of Oracle's competitors in the commercial Linux space -- with a lawsuit, but says that Oracle could make everyone's life easier by waving their magical relicensing wand. Why on Earth would Oracle do that, though? I think the best-case scenario for Oracle here is that SF Conservancy and Canonical fail to resolve their dispute, the former sues the latter, much time and money on both sides is spent in litigation, and ultimately Canonical wins. But even Canonical losing doesn't really seem to hurt Oracle significantly (it may be bad for Linux generally, but even if that somehow hurt Oracle's own Linux business, it probably wouldn't do so significantly in the near term.) The only wand I see Oracle as likely to wave is their popcorn-making wand.
avar 11y ago
> Let a court solve it once and for all please. These licenses are enforceable in hundreds of countries, courts set per-country legal precedence. There's no way a court can solve these issues once and for all.

by dsp1234 11y ago

ajross 11y ago

The "linux developers" aren't a single entity. You'd need a separate release from theoretically every copyright holder (or a really good legal argument for a subset that defines all the conflicting APIs). The point here was practical, not moral. Linux, in practice, can't relicense the kernel. Oracle, in practice, can relicense ZFS. Thus the "magic wand" comment.

dsp1234 11y ago
Does Oracle own the code for all of the existent OpenZFS code that Canonical imported? If not, then doesn't there exist the same issue that all of the developers would also need to relicense?
- ori_b 11y ago
  Companies generally require copyright assignment.
- ajross 11y ago
  Arrgh. The same issue in principle, but not in practice. "All the developers" of OpenZFS are Oracle Corporation, plus a few dozen other folks we can grep from the commit log. And if they don't consent and Oracle does, surely the community can duplicate the effort quickly. In practice (that word again) all the meaningful copyright to ZFS sits inside Oracle headquarters. It's just not the same. (Also, as another poster points out, it's possible that all OpenZFS copyright is already assigned to Oracle -- I have no particular knowledge)
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    No need to "Arrgh.". I'm asking serious questions that seem relevant, in which I'm interesting in getting actual opinions. And if they don't consent and Oracle does, surely the community can duplicate the effort quickly. it's possible that all OpenZFS copyright is already assigned to Oracle -- I have no particular knowledge As a reference, the AUTHORS[0] file from the 'zfs on linux' project that was imported into ubuntu lists 73 authors not including the Oracle developers, which appear to be both individuals (gmail accounts, etc) and multiple individual businesses (nexenta, ovh, etc) This still seems to fall in to the category of "It's must be easy for you, because I could totally do it in 2 hours" that developers (such as myself) sometimes fall into where a task is deemed 'easy' because the complexity is hidden. It really seems like neither could easily relicense, so there is no magic wand. [0] - http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git/diff/zfs/AUTHORS?id=b65ce14d3445e8fe69b5d59aaaf2699319714179 http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git/diff/z...
    - ajross 11y ago
      Sorry, I'm compelled to emit another "arrgh". Look, ZFS on linux is a comparatively small community project with a comparatively small number of developers as such things go. To argue that this requires significant hassle to relicense is... probably correct. If Oracle were to relicense ZFS under GPLv2, the community would have to do some work (in the worst case asymptote: they'd have to duplicate the work that's already been done). To argue that this is somehow of equivalent complexity to relicensing the entire Linux kernel is... I dunno, I've used up my "arrgh" for this post. Seriously, I don't understand what you're arguing here.
      - dsp1234 11y ago
        Seriously, I don't understand what you're arguing here. I'll try to be a little clearer, but it's basically what I started with and ended with (which you actually appear to agree with) 1.) SFC says 'in this context, Oracle could make everyone's life easier by waving their magic relicensing wand' 2.) I say 'That's not much of an argument.' 3.) I say 'lists 73 authors not including the Oracle developers, which appear to be both individuals (gmail accounts, etc) and multiple individual businesses (nexenta, ovh, etc)' 4.) I say 'It really seems like neither could easily relicense, so there is no magic wand.' In other words, there is no 'magic wand' because even if Oracle magically did there thing it would not fix the issue that FSC has with Canonical because the actual 'ZFS on Linux' code would still be licensed as CDDL. So it's 'not much of an argument' because it would be hard (if even possible) to get every ZoL contributor to relicense, and thus doesn't solve the problem. To argue that this is somehow of equivalent complexity You seem to be getting stuck on some issue of relicensing being equivalent. From a mathematical point of view, I'm sure you could assign some probability to both events (with Linux relicensing having a smaller chance), but it seems like for all intents and purposes, it's zero (even if Oracle relicensed). Do two events have to have equivalent complexity in order to be basically irrelevant as FSC argument? Seems to me like it's just FSC finger-pointing as rhetorical trick (and thus my pointing out it's lack of merit)
- dap 11y ago
  No. Despite what other replies to your post have said, several companies (and many individuals) have contributed large pieces to ZFS, and they still hold copyright.
  - carussell 11y ago
    Unless a project published under CDDL includes a conspicuous notice saying that no future versions published by Sun shall apply to the software, then the project is totally at the whim of Sun, who is allowed to relicense it under whichever terms it wants, at any time. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=11177827 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=11177827
lmm 11y ago
To treat this as Oracle's fault would be to reward Linux for sabotaging their own ability to relicense through a haphazard copyright policy and resulting murky ownership. It's not like some external force prevents Linux from relicensing. They've made their own bed.

dmm 11y ago

> Well, so could the linux developers by relicensing to MIT. The majority of the zfs sources are owned by Oracle, one entity. The linux kernel has many copyright owners and it would require the permission of nearly all of them to relicense the kernel. That makes it a different situation.

ryao 11y ago
That might no longer be true. There has been an enormous amount of development since Oracle killed OpenSolaris, such that Oracle is unlikely to remain the majority copyright holder in the future and at some point, there will be no majority copyright holder. That might have already happened. So far, no one has checked.
- d_b 11y ago
  yes, lets all base our understandings on shaky legal speculation.
  - ryao 11y ago
    > yes, lets all base our understandings on shaky legal speculation. That is what the SFC did when it suggested that Oracle was unilaterally capable of changing the license of ZFSOnLinux.
    - d_b 11y ago
      And by your logic, also what Canonical did. Wee! Why are you still commenting with legal speculation? You realise your name is attached to it, and you are potentially liable for misleading people?
      - ryao 11y ago
        If I could go back in time and change what I have written, I would correct a few typos, but leave everything I said otherwise unchanged. That being said, it is clear that your account was made for the sole purpose of replying to me. Would you care to put your name behind your comments in a manner that can be independently verified? I have trouble viewing those that do not distinguish themselves from anonymous trolls as anything but anonymous trolls.

Avshalom 11y ago

On one hand a court decision would solve it once and for all on the other hand who the hell are we gonna find that A) is actually qualified to judge this sort of thing B) doesn't have a vested interest in one way or another. On the gripping hand it wouldn't actually solve anything because lawyers will continually argue that this case isn't covered by that precedent.

dsp1234 11y ago
This is a copyright issue just like any other. Thus the normal court system should be able to make a decision one way or the other. If the reality is that literally no one is capable of adjudicating this issue, then there is literally no teeth to the GPL since who could make a decision on it. I believe that's not really the case though. And of course lawyers are always going to argue, that's literally their job after all. However, having some actual solid ground here would be helpful since "exceptions" abound, and it's basically "if we like you or we're forced to do because you have market power (nvidia), then it's totally cool". Land on the wrong side of that and you're getting bashed (again note the difference between Canonical distributing zfs vs nvidia's graphics binary).
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  >If the reality is that literally no one is capable of adjudicating this issue, then there is literally no teeth to the GPL since who could make a decision on it. Not true at all. Most claims of GPL violation are very straightforward.
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    True, but we were not discussing general GPL violations. But specifically the murkiness of the binary kernel module 'exceptions' (or if they are not actually derivative works in the first place, and thus not really 'exceptions', but rights). That's what 'this issue' refers to above.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

Another funny thing about this line: > in this context, Oracle could make everyone's life easier by waving their magic relicensing wand. SF Conservancy is stating that they have grounds and willingness -- though only as a "last resort" -- to tie Canonical, one of Oracle's competitors in the commercial Linux space -- with a lawsuit, but says that Oracle could make everyone's life easier by waving their magical relicensing wand. Why on Earth would Oracle do that, though? I think the best-case scenario for Oracle here is that SF Conservancy and Canonical fail to resolve their dispute, the former sues the latter, much time and money on both sides is spent in litigation, and ultimately Canonical wins. But even Canonical losing doesn't really seem to hurt Oracle significantly (it may be bad for Linux generally, but even if that somehow hurt Oracle's own Linux business, it probably wouldn't do so significantly in the near term.) The only wand I see Oracle as likely to wave is their popcorn-making wand.

avar 11y ago

> Let a court solve it once and for all please. These licenses are enforceable in hundreds of countries, courts set per-country legal precedence. There's no way a court can solve these issues once and for all.