3 ms·
I think people typically mean that Larry Ellison could come out and say there are no issues with incorporating CDDL code into a GPLv2 code base. Ideally in a do
by _-david-_ 7y ago
I think people typically mean that Larry Ellison could come out and say there are no issues with incorporating CDDL code into a GPLv2 code base. Ideally in a document signed by him and lawyers at Oracle given to the Linux Foundation. If that happened I don't think people would have an issue adding ZoL to the kernel.
- p_l 7y agoThere are no issues on the side of CDDL anyway. Larry can't change the fact that GPL is the source of incompatibility - the general interpretation is that GPLv2 forbids code that has stricter licensing terms than GPLv2, and CDDL happens to have that - in form of patent grant. It's also why GPLv3 code has a license issue with Linux kernel, which is GPLv2.
- hvis 7y agoThey can relicense Oracle-owned code under GPL. As just one example. There are probably other options, too.
- p_l 7y agoYes, and it would require starting the port from zero, as I have said.
- hvis 7y agoNah, it's the same code. There would be no need to create a new derivative work. It's a pipe dream anyway, of course.
- p_l 7y agoIt's not the same code - OpenZFS has substantially diverged from ZFS v28 which was last common version between OpenZFS and Solaris, that's one thing. Another is that all the porting work in ZoL that isn't already GPLv2 is CDDL - and Oracle is not the copyright owner. In fact, the copyright owners would not want to change the license to GPLv2, unless maybe it was done as dual license.
- asveikau 7y agoI was being a bit flippant rather than literal with the Ellison comment. I think I read a similar joke on an LKML thread or similar once.