4 ms·

This post basically discusses Ubuntu's shipping of ZoL kernel modules, stock, inside of their initrd image, from what I can tell. Which, in short, is a violati

This post basically discusses Ubuntu's shipping of ZoL kernel modules, stock, inside of their initrd image, from what I can tell. Which, in short, is a violation of the GPL and/or the CDDL. Now, if you go and build your own modules and not distribute them (such as using DKMS to build from source via Debian's zfs-dkms and spl-dkms, which Ubuntu decided not to do as well), then it's fine. No violation here, and the linked article basically says this inside of a bunch of wiggle room just in case they ever need to say they didn't say that. As a ZoL user on Debian, Ubuntu usage of ZFS is a bit irritating. ZFS is hands down the best file system out there, and Ubuntu fouling up things with their style of politics isn't okay.

unixhero 9y ago
I really don't get it. Why (is it) (that you feel) Ubuntu is fouling up anything by including ZFS into their os shipment?
- radiowave 9y ago
  The SFC article doesn't seem to me to be very clear on this point, but I wonder it has to do with shipping a memory image. Many years ago there was a disussion between a member of the Squeak Smalltalk community (an IP lawyer by day) and the FSF's Eben Moglen. Moglen's position was roughly along the lines that libraries that are not considered to be deeply linked while out on disk in separate files, become deeply linked when loaded into RAM (or maybe into the same process's virtual address space, or something), such that taking a memory image of such a combination of modules, and using it as a means of distribution would be sufficient to trigger the "viral" aspect of the GPL. (Since Smalltalk systems tend to rely heavily upon memory images, this is why GPL code became distinctly unwelcome in most Smalltalk communities, presumably except for GNU Smalltalk.)
FireBeyond 9y ago
> Which, in short, is a violation of the GPL and/or the CDDL. Please don't make statements of opinion as though they are verified fact. On one hand you have claims like this, and on the other you have Ubuntu who have said they consulted with attorneys well-versed in open source matters who did not believe there was a violation here. In the absence of litigation, or similar, especially considering the high profile of this issue, I'm inclined to go that way, rather than armchair lawyering here.
- 5ilv3r 9y ago
  "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. " You cannot build a binary with CDDL code and distribute it as anything other than CDDL. Ubuntu is wrong and likewise you are wrong. Otherwise, riddle me this: What is the license of the ubuntu shipped kernel packages? Oracle says it's CDDL. Linus says it's the GPL. Which do you believe it is?
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    > Ubuntu is wrong and likewise you are wrong. Thanks, anonymous internet attorney. This is not an appeal to authority, but when a corporation is willing to put out official communication stating that they have consulted with attorneys whose legal opinion is that there is no violation here, and who has a lot more to lose than you or I, I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
    - 5ilv3r 9y ago
      Well sir, I am not. Good day to you.
    - throwaway2048 9y ago
      That is infact, an appeal to authority, don't kid yourself.
      - 4ad 9y ago
        https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/36408 https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/36408
    - 4ad 9y ago
      It's not one corporation, it's at least two. Joyent did basically the reverse thing. They took KVM, a Linux-derived GPL module and put it together with the CDDL illumos kernel. They lawyers analyzed this situation and vetted it okay.

unixhero 9y ago

I really don't get it. Why (is it) (that you feel) Ubuntu is fouling up anything by including ZFS into their os shipment?

radiowave 9y ago
The SFC article doesn't seem to me to be very clear on this point, but I wonder it has to do with shipping a memory image. Many years ago there was a disussion between a member of the Squeak Smalltalk community (an IP lawyer by day) and the FSF's Eben Moglen. Moglen's position was roughly along the lines that libraries that are not considered to be deeply linked while out on disk in separate files, become deeply linked when loaded into RAM (or maybe into the same process's virtual address space, or something), such that taking a memory image of such a combination of modules, and using it as a means of distribution would be sufficient to trigger the "viral" aspect of the GPL. (Since Smalltalk systems tend to rely heavily upon memory images, this is why GPL code became distinctly unwelcome in most Smalltalk communities, presumably except for GNU Smalltalk.)

FireBeyond 9y ago

> Which, in short, is a violation of the GPL and/or the CDDL. Please don't make statements of opinion as though they are verified fact. On one hand you have claims like this, and on the other you have Ubuntu who have said they consulted with attorneys well-versed in open source matters who did not believe there was a violation here. In the absence of litigation, or similar, especially considering the high profile of this issue, I'm inclined to go that way, rather than armchair lawyering here.

5ilv3r 9y ago
"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. " You cannot build a binary with CDDL code and distribute it as anything other than CDDL. Ubuntu is wrong and likewise you are wrong. Otherwise, riddle me this: What is the license of the ubuntu shipped kernel packages? Oracle says it's CDDL. Linus says it's the GPL. Which do you believe it is?
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > Ubuntu is wrong and likewise you are wrong. Thanks, anonymous internet attorney. This is not an appeal to authority, but when a corporation is willing to put out official communication stating that they have consulted with attorneys whose legal opinion is that there is no violation here, and who has a lot more to lose than you or I, I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
  - 5ilv3r 9y ago
    Well sir, I am not. Good day to you.
  - throwaway2048 9y ago
    That is infact, an appeal to authority, don't kid yourself.
    - 4ad 9y ago
      https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/36408 https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/36408
  - 4ad 9y ago
    It's not one corporation, it's at least two. Joyent did basically the reverse thing. They took KVM, a Linux-derived GPL module and put it together with the CDDL illumos kernel. They lawyers analyzed this situation and vetted it okay.