23 ms·

This feels very self-serving. There's no need for BSD to comment on their "longstanding relationship" with ZFS if they're only saying "we have it and it works

by web007 11y ago

This feels very self-serving. There's no need for BSD to comment on their "longstanding relationship" with ZFS if they're only saying "we have it and it works within our framework" versus adding something constructive to the dialog on its licensing in Linux. It's awesome that the BSD and ZFS licenses are compatible and that it works well. It just has nothing to do with the headlines they are addressing.

rbanffy 11y ago
It is yet another way of them saying "See? Our license is better than theirs."
ksec 11y ago
Like there is no need to market its product then?
Sanddancer 11y ago
No, the FreeBSD foundation is showing that different entities, with different licenses, can cooperate. As the SFLC mentioned in their original posting, combining ZFS in the kernel feels little more than damnum absque injuria. In order for any judgement to be laid, there has to be shown some sort of injured party. Who is injured exactly by integrating a kernel module with primarily CDDL code with the Linux kernel, which itself already includes many binary only files where the licensing is questionable?
- pilif 11y ago
  > Who is injured exactly by integrating a kernel module with primarily CDDL code with the Linux kernel Oracle as the sole copyright holder of zfs might be because thy lose potential Solaris sales when zfs is distributed with Linux this way. At least they could argue that before some court
  - cyphar 11y ago
    Oracle was the original copyright holder before the OpenSolaris fiasco and Illumos was forked.
    - pilif 11y ago
      There still are a lot of lines in a lot of files that were written by Sun employees which are now owned by Oracle. So the same way a kernel developer has a potential standing to sue canonical over their potential GPL violation, Oracle has the same potential standing to sue canonical over their potential CDDL violation. It's just that oracle is ever so much more likely to sue and actually win (see: the google api's are copyrightable case)
- ableal 11y ago
  > damnum absque injuria Neat, but the definitions I found say that's "harm without a legal wrong" (such as reducing someone's income by opening a competing shop). To my untrained eye, the Linux kernel issue seems to be a legal wrong without harm, as you say ...

by web007 11y ago

rbanffy 11y ago

It is yet another way of them saying "See? Our license is better than theirs."

ksec 11y ago

Like there is no need to market its product then?

Sanddancer 11y ago

No, the FreeBSD foundation is showing that different entities, with different licenses, can cooperate. As the SFLC mentioned in their original posting, combining ZFS in the kernel feels little more than damnum absque injuria. In order for any judgement to be laid, there has to be shown some sort of injured party. Who is injured exactly by integrating a kernel module with primarily CDDL code with the Linux kernel, which itself already includes many binary only files where the licensing is questionable?

pilif 11y ago
> Who is injured exactly by integrating a kernel module with primarily CDDL code with the Linux kernel Oracle as the sole copyright holder of zfs might be because thy lose potential Solaris sales when zfs is distributed with Linux this way. At least they could argue that before some court
- cyphar 11y ago
  Oracle was the original copyright holder before the OpenSolaris fiasco and Illumos was forked.
  - pilif 11y ago
    There still are a lot of lines in a lot of files that were written by Sun employees which are now owned by Oracle. So the same way a kernel developer has a potential standing to sue canonical over their potential GPL violation, Oracle has the same potential standing to sue canonical over their potential CDDL violation. It's just that oracle is ever so much more likely to sue and actually win (see: the google api's are copyrightable case)
ableal 11y ago
> damnum absque injuria Neat, but the definitions I found say that's "harm without a legal wrong" (such as reducing someone's income by opening a competing shop). To my untrained eye, the Linux kernel issue seems to be a legal wrong without harm, as you say ...