6 ms·

Interpreting, Enforcing and Changing the GNU GPL: Combining Linux and ZFS

19 points by davexunit 11y ago

jlgaddis 11y ago
I began reading this expecting to find a statement, one way or the other, on whether including ZFS support (such as Ubuntu is doing) was "acceptable" in the FSF's eyes. There really wasn't a firm statement, but there are a few key points: > Likewise, the copyright holders of ZFS (the version that is actually used) can give permission to use it under the GNU GPL, version 2 or later, in addition to any other license. This would make it possible to combine that version with Linux without violating the license of Linux. This would be the ideal resolution and we urge the copyright holders of ZFS to do so. Personally, I don't see that happening anytime soon. > Some copyright holders choose not to enforce their licenses in specific situations.9 That enables users to operate as if permission were granted. However, this does not alter the meaning of the GNU GPL, and does not cause uses that the GPL disallows to either suddenly or slowly become permitted by the GPL. Such acquiescence is not the case in regard to linking Linux and ZFS; indeed, some Linux copyright holders have said they consider this copyright infringement. We have explained above the reasons why that is so. > The FSF is not a copyright holder of Linux, except for small pieces copied from programs which we released under the Lesser GPL or GPL plus exceptions, and perhaps an obscure processor port. We do not presume on the strength of these pieces of code to tell the developers of Linux proper how to approach GPL enforcement for Linux, and we won't advocate a choice as if we had a say. However, we enthusiastically encourage enforcement of the GPL on Linux in accord with the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement, and we wish the enforcers success in bringing violators into compliance, thus maintaining the GPL's integrity so it can defend users' freedom. From those statements, I think it's clear that the FSF believes that including ZFS support is a violation of the GPL. It also made me think (because of their mention of "license termination") that the FSF might consider "terminating" Ubuntu's (Canonical's) license to distribute any "GNU software" (i.e., software to which the copyright is held by the GNU Project / FSF). Such a move would be unprecedented and devastating to Ubuntu.
- ashitlerferad 11y ago
  Most GNU/FSF software will be "or later" licensed, so Ubuntu could quite easily come back into compliance using the provisions in GPLv3.
- belorn 11y ago
  >> Likewise, the copyright holders of ZFS (the version that is actually used) can give permission to use it under the GNU GPL > Personally, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Remembering reading that the author of ZFS has said that they would prefer if ZFS had been licensed Apache license rather than CDDL. Its not their decision to make, but it goes to show that there is people are interested in such license change.
  - ashitlerferad 11y ago
    The Apache license isn't GPLv2 compatible either so it wouldn't allow ZFS to be integrated into Linux either.

19 points by davexunit 11y ago

I began reading this expecting to find a statement, one way or the other, on whether including ZFS support (such as Ubuntu is doing) was "acceptable" in the FSF's eyes. There really wasn't a firm statement, but there are a few key points: > Likewise, the copyright holders of ZFS (the version that is actually used) can give permission to use it under the GNU GPL, version 2 or later, in addition to any other license. This would make it possible to combine that version with Linux without violating the license of Linux. This would be the ideal resolution and we urge the copyright holders of ZFS to do so. Personally, I don't see that happening anytime soon. > Some copyright holders choose not to enforce their licenses in specific situations.9 That enables users to operate as if permission were granted. However, this does not alter the meaning of the GNU GPL, and does not cause uses that the GPL disallows to either suddenly or slowly become permitted by the GPL. Such acquiescence is not the case in regard to linking Linux and ZFS; indeed, some Linux copyright holders have said they consider this copyright infringement. We have explained above the reasons why that is so. > The FSF is not a copyright holder of Linux, except for small pieces copied from programs which we released under the Lesser GPL or GPL plus exceptions, and perhaps an obscure processor port. We do not presume on the strength of these pieces of code to tell the developers of Linux proper how to approach GPL enforcement for Linux, and we won't advocate a choice as if we had a say. However, we enthusiastically encourage enforcement of the GPL on Linux in accord with the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement, and we wish the enforcers success in bringing violators into compliance, thus maintaining the GPL's integrity so it can defend users' freedom. From those statements, I think it's clear that the FSF believes that including ZFS support is a violation of the GPL. It also made me think (because of their mention of "license termination") that the FSF might consider "terminating" Ubuntu's (Canonical's) license to distribute any "GNU software" (i.e., software to which the copyright is held by the GNU Project / FSF). Such a move would be unprecedented and devastating to Ubuntu.

ashitlerferad 11y ago
Most GNU/FSF software will be "or later" licensed, so Ubuntu could quite easily come back into compliance using the provisions in GPLv3.
belorn 11y ago
>> Likewise, the copyright holders of ZFS (the version that is actually used) can give permission to use it under the GNU GPL > Personally, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Remembering reading that the author of ZFS has said that they would prefer if ZFS had been licensed Apache license rather than CDDL. Its not their decision to make, but it goes to show that there is people are interested in such license change.
- ashitlerferad 11y ago
  The Apache license isn't GPLv2 compatible either so it wouldn't allow ZFS to be integrated into Linux either.