4 ms·

The FSF and SFLC aren't "allowing wilfull violation"; they aren't the copyright owners of the Linux kernel, they just-so-happened to write some licensing terms

The FSF and SFLC aren't "allowing wilfull violation"; they aren't the copyright owners of the Linux kernel, they just-so-happened to write some licensing terms (the GPLv2) which the Linux kernel authors decided to use of their own volition. If anyone's "allowing" something, it's the kernel developers. Keep in mind that (a) the FSF uses copyright assignment for many projects, which would put it in a legal position to pursue infringements for those projects, but Linux is not one of those projects; (b) the SFLC is a legal organisation, not a software developer, so they only pursue infringements on behalf of client projects; as far as I'm aware, Linux is not one of their clients. I've not waded too far into this before, but from reading http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.html http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.... it seems to me that: - Canonical distributes Linux+ZFS binaries under the GPLv2. - As per the GPLv2, Canonical must provide the corresponding source, also under the GPLv2. - The ZFS source is under the CDDL, which permits relicensing binaries (hence it's compatible with the first point) but not relicensing of the source, which is incompatible with the second point. - Hence Canonical can either provide Linux+ZFS source under the GPLv2, violating the source's CDDL; or provide Linux source under GPLv2 and ZFS source under CDDL, violating the binary's GPLv2; or stop distributing Linux+ZFS binaries. They chose the second option. - Since CDDL and GPLv2 are both copyleft FOSS licenses, this incompatibility is arguably a technicality since it doesn't violate the "spirit" of either license, and may be ignored at the copyright owner's discretion. - The copyright owners of Linux seem to be ignoring it, which is fine. So I don't see what the big deal is. By acting in this way, Canonical improve the usability of their distro, whilst they and their users/customers incur the risk that some day, potentially, they might have to change their config to build the module separately (like Debian does).

l1ambda 9y ago
And the only pertinent clause would be in the GPL (the CDDL doesn't care), regarding if ZFS were a derivative work of Linux, which it plainly is not. All this "GPL and CDDL are incompatible!" is nonsense.
- wmf 9y ago
  But is the Ubuntu ISO a derivative work of Linux?
  - jdboyd 9y ago
    The binary kernel in the ISO seems to certainly be a derivative work of Linux, but only the copyright owners whose code is included in that binary kernel would have standing to sue about this. That means parties like Linus Torvalds, Intel, LSI, and many other companies and individuals. And clearly so far those copyright holders haven't seen fit to sue about it. It seems fair to anticipate no law suits since as far as I'm aware kernel developers have never filed a law suit against companies committing really blatant infringement. Most of the action there seemed to come from the BusyBox project.
- bsder 9y ago
  It is not nonsense, and Sun went out of its way to make sure that the CDDL and GPL are incompatible. So, all the ZFS on Linux users are okay until Oracle sees money in suing them.
  - chriswarbo 9y ago
    The link above seems to say that that the GPLv3 is compatible. Linux won't(/can't) be changing from GPLv2 any time soon though. I don't know about Sun's intentions.
  - l1ambda 9y ago
    > Sun went out of its way to make sure that the CDDL and GPL are incompatible. What evidence is there of this?
    - wmf 9y ago
      Sun could have written the CDDL to be GPL-compatible yet they chose not to and they generally refused to explain why. I suspect that they did not want to see OpenSolaris become an "organ donor" for Linux but they also didn't want to appear weak by saying so in public. The closest I can find is where Simon Phipps said "to be GPL compatible you actually have to be willing to have your license discarded and replaced with the GPL. It's more a Borg-like assimilation than compatibility, in my view, and pretty undesirable as it results in future code enrichment being accumulated in some other code commons." https://web.archive.org/web/20050420234857/http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink/20050415#failed_as_in_succeeded_wildly https://web.archive.org/web/20050420234857/http://blogs.sun....

l1ambda 9y ago

And the only pertinent clause would be in the GPL (the CDDL doesn't care), regarding if ZFS were a derivative work of Linux, which it plainly is not. All this "GPL and CDDL are incompatible!" is nonsense.

wmf 9y ago
But is the Ubuntu ISO a derivative work of Linux?
- jdboyd 9y ago
  The binary kernel in the ISO seems to certainly be a derivative work of Linux, but only the copyright owners whose code is included in that binary kernel would have standing to sue about this. That means parties like Linus Torvalds, Intel, LSI, and many other companies and individuals. And clearly so far those copyright holders haven't seen fit to sue about it. It seems fair to anticipate no law suits since as far as I'm aware kernel developers have never filed a law suit against companies committing really blatant infringement. Most of the action there seemed to come from the BusyBox project.
bsder 9y ago
It is not nonsense, and Sun went out of its way to make sure that the CDDL and GPL are incompatible. So, all the ZFS on Linux users are okay until Oracle sees money in suing them.
- chriswarbo 9y ago
  The link above seems to say that that the GPLv3 is compatible. Linux won't(/can't) be changing from GPLv2 any time soon though. I don't know about Sun's intentions.
- l1ambda 9y ago
  > Sun went out of its way to make sure that the CDDL and GPL are incompatible. What evidence is there of this?
  - wmf 9y ago
    Sun could have written the CDDL to be GPL-compatible yet they chose not to and they generally refused to explain why. I suspect that they did not want to see OpenSolaris become an "organ donor" for Linux but they also didn't want to appear weak by saying so in public. The closest I can find is where Simon Phipps said "to be GPL compatible you actually have to be willing to have your license discarded and replaced with the GPL. It's more a Borg-like assimilation than compatibility, in my view, and pretty undesirable as it results in future code enrichment being accumulated in some other code commons." https://web.archive.org/web/20050420234857/http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink/20050415#failed_as_in_succeeded_wildly https://web.archive.org/web/20050420234857/http://blogs.sun....