4 ms·

The problem is not the use per se, the problem is delivering them to the user as one blob of software together. This is not a problem with proprietary graphics

The problem is not the use per se, the problem is delivering them to the user as one blob of software together. This is not a problem with proprietary graphics drivers, since you can just download them after setting up you system. However, if you want to boot from a ZFS disk, you need the ZFS driver and the only way to obtain it at that point is effectively from the installation medium.

DCKing 11y ago
OK, fair enough. So distributions that ship the Nvidia drivers in their distro install image (AFAICT OpenELEC does this, not Canonical though) should be in trouble then? And Canonical would find a way around this by autodownloading the ZFS driver when the user select the "ZFS" option in the installer?
- mschwaig 11y ago
  IANAL but as far as I can tell there is no legal precedent here and so the questions you raise can only be answered by a lawsuit. Sure there is 'technically' a difference between packaging the ZFS driver with Ubuntu and audodownloading it, but it all depends on how a court sees it, because as long as there is no precedent you can't get off on a technicality like this.
fweespeech 11y ago
This isn't quite correct. Nothing really prevents the LiveUSB distribution from writing to itself under ext3, build the ZFS during installation, then use the binary compiled from this process to set it up on the actual SSDs/HDDs. This is legally essentially the same binary blob Nvidia driver as you aren't distributing the binary. I'm assuming the reason this wasn't done was due to the convenience + you'd need to setup the USB like: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LiveCD/Persistence https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LiveCD/Persistence But once you compiled it on the persistent partition, you'd be able to perform the installation just fine legally and technically is my understanding.
dTal 11y ago
Surely that ship sailed on Android a long time ago? Proprietary drivers, shipped to the user with Linux as a single blob, is the norm. It's the biggest problem facing Linux today, much bigger than no ZFS - it kills the concept of a "distro" on the biggest class of personal computers. How does this not violate the GPL?

DCKing 11y ago

OK, fair enough. So distributions that ship the Nvidia drivers in their distro install image (AFAICT OpenELEC does this, not Canonical though) should be in trouble then? And Canonical would find a way around this by autodownloading the ZFS driver when the user select the "ZFS" option in the installer?

mschwaig 11y ago
IANAL but as far as I can tell there is no legal precedent here and so the questions you raise can only be answered by a lawsuit. Sure there is 'technically' a difference between packaging the ZFS driver with Ubuntu and audodownloading it, but it all depends on how a court sees it, because as long as there is no precedent you can't get off on a technicality like this.

fweespeech 11y ago

This isn't quite correct. Nothing really prevents the LiveUSB distribution from writing to itself under ext3, build the ZFS during installation, then use the binary compiled from this process to set it up on the actual SSDs/HDDs. This is legally essentially the same binary blob Nvidia driver as you aren't distributing the binary. I'm assuming the reason this wasn't done was due to the convenience + you'd need to setup the USB like: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LiveCD/Persistence https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LiveCD/Persistence But once you compiled it on the persistent partition, you'd be able to perform the installation just fine legally and technically is my understanding.

dTal 11y ago

Surely that ship sailed on Android a long time ago? Proprietary drivers, shipped to the user with Linux as a single blob, is the norm. It's the biggest problem facing Linux today, much bigger than no ZFS - it kills the concept of a "distro" on the biggest class of personal computers. How does this not violate the GPL?