3 ms·
> What about the opinion of the developers who wrote the module and licensed it under CDDL? We are okay with it. Although ZFS developers on all open source pl
by ryao 11y ago
> What about the opinion of the developers who wrote the module and licensed it under CDDL?
We are okay with it.
Although ZFS developers on all open source platforms are considered OpenZFS developers, I am explicitly listed on the wiki:
http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Contributors#Richard_Yao http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Contributors#Richard_Yao
I am also the #2 ZFSOnLinux contributor by commit count according to github's statistics and I have maintained that position for years:
https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/graphs/contributors https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/graphs/contributors
If any of the other OpenZFS developers had a problem with Linux distributions shipping the OpenZFS code, I ought to have heard about that by now. So far, every OpenZFS developer on every other platform that I meet is happy that the code is available on Linux. I have even met employees at Oracle that are happy about it. While that is not an official stance of Oracle, Oracle itself publishes a dtrace module under the CDDL for use on Linux, so it would be strange to think that they would have a problem with shipping a port of the ZFS driver from the original OpenSolaris codebase under the original license for Linux, especially when it benefits Oracle Linux.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- d_b 11y agoYou're not one of the original copyright holders.. Oracle is one of the largest copyright holders. Maybe you should stop posting legal opinions when you clearly have your own bias?
- ryao 11y agoI hold copyright on a significant enough amount of the Linux port that the license cannot easily change without my consent. The same is true for at least a dozen other people/organizations, if not a few dozen. You cannot say the same about yourself. That being said, I am actively avoiding any statements that are repetitive with other comments that I have made on hacker news because they are not productive.
- d_b 11y agoExactly, you don't own enough of the code to change the license nor do you have the power to just magically change the license texts to allow them to become compatible. We can't allow this one violation without allowing all.
- ryao 11y agoYou assume that there is a violation, but I do not know of anyone who owns copyright on any portion of the ZFSOnLinux codebase that thinks that is the case. Canonical does not believe it either. Someone will need to convince us that there is a violation in order for any of us to try doing anything about it. Also, your account was clearly registered in order to reply exclusively to me. Would you care to provide your actual name in a way that can be verified? Otherwise, you are just wasting my time, which will not last much longer as my only replies are going to be for you to identify yourself.
- ryao 11y agoSomeone emailed me to say that someone that Oracle might be able to change the terms of the CDDL for all software licensed under the CDDL as per sections 4.1 and 4.2. My discussions with lawyers thus far had focused on whether Oracle could change the license for just the OpenZFS code base (the answer is no) without any other copyright holders agreeing. Whether Oracle can change the definition of the CDDL for all software licensed under it (without the statement "version 1.0 only") is something that I need to run past a lawyer, but that might be possible.
- ryao 11y agoI did not say it earlier, but this loophole would theoretically allow Oracle to publish a new version of the CDDL that is not open source at all and all software under the CDDL without a version peg would be avaliable under it. I just consulted with another OpenZFS developer. All new files will be CDDL version 1.0 only. Consequently, this loophole is being closed.
- 11y ago