3 ms·

"I don't think anyone thinks of ZFS as a derivative work of the Linux kernel." Yes, I wouldn't have thought so either, but the legal technicalities hinged on t

"I don't think anyone thinks of ZFS as a derivative work of the Linux kernel." Yes, I wouldn't have thought so either, but the legal technicalities hinged on this, and this was the opinion of many, including Richard Stallman. He stated there was no way that ZFS could be bundled with a Linux distribution without infringing on the GPL. Ubuntu sought separate legal opinion and concluded differently. They are now shipping ZFS as part of their distribution. I think this is an example of why some people are averse to the GPL. Right-spirited use of GPL software could risk exposure to a lawsuit. I guess this could be called the "ten foot pole" argument in favor of more permissive licenses.

cyphar 10y ago
> Right-spirited use of GPL software could risk exposure to a lawsuit. Users of GPL'd software will never be sued. It's developers and distributors that choose to create software using components with conflicting licenses. In my opinion, the benefits for users far outweigh the annoyances of developers. The reason Richard Stallman presumably claims that ZFS is a derivative work is because otherwise the strength of the GPL would be perceived as being weaker. It was a political play IMO, not one from the standpoint of ethics. Though, it would be fair to say that if you create a translation layer for Linux that would be a derivative work of Linux but because of how it would be used it would also require licensing ZFS under the GPL (because the two pieces of software are intricately linked). So it's possibly true that there would be an effective violation of the GPL. > I guess this could be called the "ten foot pole" argument in favor of more permissive licenses. On the other hand, users are also not protected from developers or distributors creating modified versions of your work that are not free software. I guess that could be called the "protection of freedom" argument in favour of stronger copyleft licenses.

cyphar 10y ago

> Right-spirited use of GPL software could risk exposure to a lawsuit. Users of GPL'd software will never be sued. It's developers and distributors that choose to create software using components with conflicting licenses. In my opinion, the benefits for users far outweigh the annoyances of developers. The reason Richard Stallman presumably claims that ZFS is a derivative work is because otherwise the strength of the GPL would be perceived as being weaker. It was a political play IMO, not one from the standpoint of ethics. Though, it would be fair to say that if you create a translation layer for Linux that would be a derivative work of Linux but because of how it would be used it would also require licensing ZFS under the GPL (because the two pieces of software are intricately linked). So it's possibly true that there would be an effective violation of the GPL. > I guess this could be called the "ten foot pole" argument in favor of more permissive licenses. On the other hand, users are also not protected from developers or distributors creating modified versions of your work that are not free software. I guess that could be called the "protection of freedom" argument in favour of stronger copyleft licenses.