4 ms·

>One theory is that Canonical has essentially forced Oracle to decide whether it wants to crack down on inclusion of CDDL-licensed code being shipped with Ubunt

>One theory is that Canonical has essentially forced Oracle to decide whether it wants to crack down on inclusion of CDDL-licensed code being shipped with Ubuntu's stock kernel Huh? Are Canonical is shipping ZFS in their kernel now ? I thought they just distributed it as a separate module.

ethbro 9y ago
There was an article a bit ago on HN where the Free Software Conservancy (?) wrote that legally, shipping a precompiled binary kernel module is the same as having it in the kernel.
- gribbly 9y ago
  But obviously Canonical's lawyers don't think shipping it separately is the same as shipping it in the kernel, because if they did they would not ship it separately to begin with.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Granted. But Canonical's lawyers are not canonical. There's legal disagreement, and saying "Ubuntu did it" doesn't make those problems disappear. (Sadly)
    - gribbly 9y ago
      >>But Canonical's lawyers are not canonical. Hmm... not sure what you meant by this statement ?
      - ethbro 9y ago
        "authorized; recognized; accepted" I.e. their opinion is not the only opinion on the matter.
    - FireBeyond 9y ago
      I haven't seen any legal opinion since Canonical's press release, which states that they consulted with counsel who believed that they were in compliance with both licenses. I -have- seen a lot of argument online, opinions and otherwise that disagree with this, but not anything from a lawyer - mainly "philosophical" or opining on the "intent" of the GPL, rather than "based on clauses x, y, and z, this is impermissible". Which is not to say, if something of an opinion exists in response to Canonical's release of ZFS, I would love to see it - a legal opinion, not armchair lawyering or opinionizing.
  - snuxoll 9y ago
    The argument really is based around what constitutes a derivative work. ZFS does not depend on Linux, OpenZFS which ZFS on Linux derives from is an Illumos project first and foremost - does modifying it to plug into the Linux VFS layer make it a derived work of the Linux kernel? If this ever goes to court it will be an interesting case.

ethbro 9y ago

There was an article a bit ago on HN where the Free Software Conservancy (?) wrote that legally, shipping a precompiled binary kernel module is the same as having it in the kernel.

gribbly 9y ago
But obviously Canonical's lawyers don't think shipping it separately is the same as shipping it in the kernel, because if they did they would not ship it separately to begin with.
- ethbro 9y ago
  Granted. But Canonical's lawyers are not canonical. There's legal disagreement, and saying "Ubuntu did it" doesn't make those problems disappear. (Sadly)
  - gribbly 9y ago
    >>But Canonical's lawyers are not canonical. Hmm... not sure what you meant by this statement ?
    - ethbro 9y ago
      "authorized; recognized; accepted" I.e. their opinion is not the only opinion on the matter.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    I haven't seen any legal opinion since Canonical's press release, which states that they consulted with counsel who believed that they were in compliance with both licenses. I -have- seen a lot of argument online, opinions and otherwise that disagree with this, but not anything from a lawyer - mainly "philosophical" or opining on the "intent" of the GPL, rather than "based on clauses x, y, and z, this is impermissible". Which is not to say, if something of an opinion exists in response to Canonical's release of ZFS, I would love to see it - a legal opinion, not armchair lawyering or opinionizing.
- snuxoll 9y ago
  The argument really is based around what constitutes a derivative work. ZFS does not depend on Linux, OpenZFS which ZFS on Linux derives from is an Illumos project first and foremost - does modifying it to plug into the Linux VFS layer make it a derived work of the Linux kernel? If this ever goes to court it will be an interesting case.