3 ms·

Can you point to the area in which Canonical is in violation of the CDDL? I can't see that they are. They may be in violation of the GPL, but the CDDL seems f

by dsp1234 11y ago

Can you point to the area in which Canonical is in violation of the CDDL? I can't see that they are. They may be in violation of the GPL, but the CDDL seems fine. Specifically[0]: "1.3. Covered Software means (a) the Original Software, or (b) Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original Software with files containing Modifications, in each case including portions thereof." "Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License." The binary module they are distributing is the 'covered software' and they are making the source code and their modifications to that source code available via CDDL. They appear to be meeting their CDDL license burden. In other words, Linux Kernel developers could sue because the GPL license terms aren't met, but Oracle couldn't sue because the CDDL license terms are being met. [0] - https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0

pilif 11y ago
Thank you - I was mistaken in some of the clauses of the CDDL.
ge0rg 11y ago
n other words, Linux Kernel developers could sue because the GPL license terms aren't met, but Oracle couldn't sue because the CDDL license terms are being met. As Oracle has contributed to the Linux kernel as well, they are in a position to sue over GPL violation.
- dsp1234 11y ago
  Indeed, but generally people seem to be coming at it from the Oracle suing over the CDDL side. Additionally, if I understand correctly, in order to have a chance to sue, Oracle would have to show that the code in question violates their actual copyright, which is only in code that the wrote/contributed. So Oracle would likely need to prove that the ZFS code interfaces/touches/uses their copyrighted code, otherwise they would not have standing (in the US). I have no clue if that interaction occurs or not.

by dsp1234 11y ago

pilif 11y ago

Thank you - I was mistaken in some of the clauses of the CDDL.

ge0rg 11y ago

n other words, Linux Kernel developers could sue because the GPL license terms aren't met, but Oracle couldn't sue because the CDDL license terms are being met. As Oracle has contributed to the Linux kernel as well, they are in a position to sue over GPL violation.

dsp1234 11y ago
Indeed, but generally people seem to be coming at it from the Oracle suing over the CDDL side. Additionally, if I understand correctly, in order to have a chance to sue, Oracle would have to show that the code in question violates their actual copyright, which is only in code that the wrote/contributed. So Oracle would likely need to prove that the ZFS code interfaces/touches/uses their copyrighted code, otherwise they would not have standing (in the US). I have no clue if that interaction occurs or not.