3 ms·

You'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

by d_b 11y ago

You'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 ago
I 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 ago
  Exactly, 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 ago
    You 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 ago
  Someone 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 ago
    I 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.
    - ioquatix 11y ago
      Why can't new code be dual licensed, say, under the CDDL and the MIT license?
      - icebraining 11y ago
        The CDDL has a copyleft provision, similar to the MPL. One of the clauses states "The Modifications that You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License."
        carussell 11y ago
        The CDDL is file-based, just like the MPL that it was forked from, and was specifically authored to allow mixing with proprietary code. The only thing that the part you quoted means is that changes to existing files must be available under CDDL terms (or freer). In any case, the contributors who own the rights to the code they submit are free to make it available under any other license they want, whether it be MIT or something else.

by d_b 11y ago

You'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 ago

I 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 ago
Exactly, 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 ago
  You 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 ago
Someone 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 ago
  I 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.
  - ioquatix 11y ago
    Why can't new code be dual licensed, say, under the CDDL and the MIT license?
    - icebraining 11y ago
      The CDDL has a copyleft provision, similar to the MPL. One of the clauses states "The Modifications that You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License."
      - carussell 11y ago
        The CDDL is file-based, just like the MPL that it was forked from, and was specifically authored to allow mixing with proprietary code. The only thing that the part you quoted means is that changes to existing files must be available under CDDL terms (or freer). In any case, the contributors who own the rights to the code they submit are free to make it available under any other license they want, whether it be MIT or something else.