5 ms·

The article states: >"ZFS isn’t an option RHEL can embrace due to licensing (Ubuntu notwithstanding.)" Can someone explain that comment to me? I understand th

The article states: >"ZFS isn’t an option RHEL can embrace due to licensing (Ubuntu notwithstanding.)" Can someone explain that comment to me? I understand that that ZFS is CDDL but why is this acceptable for Canonical and not Red Hat? They both have enterprise customers. Is this just differing opinions form each's legal council or does this comment imply something else?

greenhouse_gas 9y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but there's quite an active debate whether closed-source (or, as on this case, GPL incompatible) modules are allowed to be distributed. There are >1 lawyer which says that all kernel modules are derivative works of the kernel.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  Hasn't the NVIDIA kernel module been closed source essentially forever?
  - sanxiyn 9y ago
    Yes, and many people consider NVIDIA kernel module to be in violation of GPL.
rodgerd 9y ago
Canonical are rolling the dice and hoping Oracle don't go after them, just as they rolled the dice on the patents around multimedia they bundle but Red Hat and Fedora don't. The wisdom of relying on the generosity is left as an exercise for the reader.
- greenhouse_gas 9y ago
  I don't know if Oracle (as a right holder of ZFS) can sue them (if they distribute the modules under the CDDL, they're fine as far as Oracle is concerned). It's all the Linux rights holders (including Oracle) who can sue over the GPL violation.
  - gtirloni 9y ago
    Exactly. And it's wise of RH to stay out of that mess.