4 ms·

Oracle is not the one that could sue. There is nothing in the CDDL that prevents it being used else where. The GPL on the other hand is a strong copy left. If

Oracle is not the one that could sue. There is nothing in the CDDL that prevents it being used else where. The GPL on the other hand is a strong copy left. If you link against GPL code, your code must also be licensed as GPL. This means the Linux copyright owners could sue the distributers of ZoL binaries, but Oracle could not. Oracle has the power to allow their ZFS code to be relicensed as GPL, removing this road block, but they have no incentive to do so.

gribbly 9y ago
As I understand it, the license incompability between GPL and CDDL is that CDDL adds a restriction regarding patents, and GPL does not allow for additional restrictions to be added. So to distribute CDDL licensed code is a breach of BOTH licenses as I see it, ignoring the 'patent peace' requirement of CDDL which would be the case if distributing it as GPL does not sound legal to me (IANAL). I can certainly understand why Linus has stated that no CDDL code will be mainlined (brought into the Linux kernel tree), it all seems very ambiguous.
- greenhouse_gas 9y ago
  IANAL, but it (probably) depends on which license Canonical is using for the ZFS plugin. If they use CDDL, then I can't see how Oracle would have a case.
  - fnj 9y ago
    They can't legally use anything except CDDL. If anyone could just pick and choose to alter the licensing, there wouldn't be any point in having licences.
lottin 9y ago
According to the Software Freedom Conservancy ...redistributing a binary work incorporating CDDLv1'd and GPLv2'd copyrighted portions constitutes copyright infringement in both directions... [https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/] so it seems that Oracle could in fact sue.
- fnj 9y ago
  > so it seems that Oracle could in fact sue. Says the SFC. But Oracle has had plenty of time and they have not sued. In fact, they have not criticized Canonical for integrating ZFS.
  - wila 9y ago
    The past is not always a predictable measure for the future, especially as you don't know Oracle's agenda. They might just wait until there is more money to be gained from a lawsuit or until there's more people already on ZFS who don't want to have anything less.
    - sandGorgon 9y ago
      the courts will not allow that. you may claim that you recently discovered that there is infringement or you can claim that you are a new owner of a patent and are enforcing it. But I dont think courts will take too kindly to someone who knowingly sat without doing something and waited for it to become big. I would assume that Canonical has already sent infromation about this to Oracle. If they havent done anything now, they cant do anything later. in fact - https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/02/18/zfs-licensing-and-linux/ https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/02/18/zfs-licensing-and-lin... We at Canonical have conducted a legal review, including discussion with the industry’s leading software freedom legal counsel, of the licenses that apply to the Linux kernel and to ZFS. And in doing so, we have concluded that we are acting within the rights granted and in compliance with their terms of both of those licenses

gribbly 9y ago

As I understand it, the license incompability between GPL and CDDL is that CDDL adds a restriction regarding patents, and GPL does not allow for additional restrictions to be added. So to distribute CDDL licensed code is a breach of BOTH licenses as I see it, ignoring the 'patent peace' requirement of CDDL which would be the case if distributing it as GPL does not sound legal to me (IANAL). I can certainly understand why Linus has stated that no CDDL code will be mainlined (brought into the Linux kernel tree), it all seems very ambiguous.

greenhouse_gas 9y ago
IANAL, but it (probably) depends on which license Canonical is using for the ZFS plugin. If they use CDDL, then I can't see how Oracle would have a case.
- fnj 9y ago
  They can't legally use anything except CDDL. If anyone could just pick and choose to alter the licensing, there wouldn't be any point in having licences.

lottin 9y ago

According to the Software Freedom Conservancy ...redistributing a binary work incorporating CDDLv1'd and GPLv2'd copyrighted portions constitutes copyright infringement in both directions... [https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/] so it seems that Oracle could in fact sue.

fnj 9y ago
> so it seems that Oracle could in fact sue. Says the SFC. But Oracle has had plenty of time and they have not sued. In fact, they have not criticized Canonical for integrating ZFS.
- wila 9y ago
  The past is not always a predictable measure for the future, especially as you don't know Oracle's agenda. They might just wait until there is more money to be gained from a lawsuit or until there's more people already on ZFS who don't want to have anything less.
  - sandGorgon 9y ago
    the courts will not allow that. you may claim that you recently discovered that there is infringement or you can claim that you are a new owner of a patent and are enforcing it. But I dont think courts will take too kindly to someone who knowingly sat without doing something and waited for it to become big. I would assume that Canonical has already sent infromation about this to Oracle. If they havent done anything now, they cant do anything later. in fact - https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/02/18/zfs-licensing-and-linux/ https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/02/18/zfs-licensing-and-lin... We at Canonical have conducted a legal review, including discussion with the industry’s leading software freedom legal counsel, of the licenses that apply to the Linux kernel and to ZFS. And in doing so, we have concluded that we are acting within the rights granted and in compliance with their terms of both of those licenses