4 ms·

> It's also crazy, nearly no distro has a problem shipping ultra-proprietary software (firmware), but has a big discussion about CDDL, It's the difference betw

by cesarb 6y ago

> It's also crazy, nearly no distro has a problem shipping ultra-proprietary software (firmware), but has a big discussion about CDDL, It's the difference between "mere aggregation" and "derived work". The kernel+ZFS can be considered a derived work from both, so it has to obey both licenses (GPL2 and CDDL) at the same time; on the other hand, the firmware is completely independent from the kernel, so the licenses (GPL2 and the proprietary license) apply separately to each component. > Ubuntu has no problems with it...and i bet they have lawyers On the other hand, Fedora has problems with it as a kernel module (but they do ship it as a ZFS FUSE module, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ZFS https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ZFS), and they do have lawyers (Red Hat's lawyers review all the licenses for Fedora, and they consider the CDDL to be incompatible with the GPL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main).

nix23 6y ago
>The kernel+ZFS can be considered a derived work from both What?? No why?...no one of those project is derived from each other, ZFS is a module (on all platforms i think). >and they consider the CDDL to be incompatible with the GPL https://zonena.me/2019/01/the-cddl-is-not-incompatible-with-the-gpl/ https://zonena.me/2019/01/the-cddl-is-not-incompatible-with-... That's the important part: >You may distribute the Executable form of the Covered Software under the terms of this License or under the terms of a license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this License, provided that You are in compliance with the terms of this License and that the license for the Executable form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients rights in the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. >To reiterate, executable forms of CDDL source code can be under ANY license you want. That means your compiled ZFS module package can even be under GPL2 or 3 or beerware ;)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cesarb 6y ago
  > no one of those project is derived from each other, ZFS is a module (on all platforms i think) Once compiled, the ZFS module is a derived work from both the Linux kernel and ZFS. > > You may distribute the Executable form of the Covered Software under the terms of this License or under the terms of a license of Your choice [...] does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients rights in the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. > That means your compiled ZFS module package can even be under GPL2 or 3 or beerware I trust the Red Hat lawyers on this matter more than someone who is not a lawyer (from that page: "While it's true that I am not a lawyer [...]"). And from what I understand (I'm also not a lawyer), that clause in the CDDL applies only to the compiled result; but the GPL requires that, if the compiled result is distributed as GPL, the corresponding source code also be available under the GPL. So you cannot distribute your compiled ZFS module package under GPL2 unless the corresponding source code can also be distributed under GPL2.
  - nix23 6y ago
    >Once compiled, the ZFS module is a derived work from both the Linux kernel and ZFS. Really? So if i compile something with gcc it is a derived work from gcc and gcc is derived work from my bin? Or when i make a firefox extension it's a derived work of firefox? Compile the nvidia module...a derived work from linux? >I trust the Red Hat lawyers on this matter more than someone who is not a lawyer But he can read :) but hey whatever, really not interested if linux has something good like DTrace ZFS or Crossbow, they like the NIH-Syndrome and i am ok with that too.
    - cesarb 6y ago
      > So if i compile something with gcc it is a derived work from gcc Yes. This is why the "libgcc exception" (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.en.html) exists. The issue is that parts of runtime libraries which come with gcc are statically linked into the compiled executable; without that exception, the result would have to be under the GPL. The same issue happens with Linux kernel modules. Many functions they need are only defined as macros or inline functions in the headers (since ZFS is a filesystem, just take a look at how many inline functions there are in include/linux/fs.h). And even outside of these, many functions are so closely coupled to the internal data structures of the kernel (and the data structures themselves are also exposed to modules) that any module using them could be considered a derived work of the kernel.
trasz 6y ago
How about closed source NVidia drivers, or ESX? It’s also derived work, yet there are no licensing problems.
- nix23 6y ago
  His rhetoric is like: Fedora has problems with it :)
- comex 6y ago
  In Nvidia’s case, they have an open-source shim layer in between the kernel and the closed-source bulk of the driver. In theory, the shim layer is a derived work of the kernel, but the closed-source part is not. I’d say that’s a bit of a dubious argument, but who knows? It’s never gone to court. Search for “GPL condom”. As for ESX, that has gone to court: https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-developer-abandons-vmware-lawsuit/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-developer-abandons-vmwar...
  - nix23 6y ago
    >"GPL condom” Ahh its ok for the driver but not for net-code? https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/04/gpl_condom_nvidia_linux_kernel/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/04/gpl_condom_nvidia_lin... See that's exactly the Linux Problem... By the way...Linus is not ok with a ZFS GPL shimlayer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22005901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22005901
    - trasz 6y ago
      It would probably be equally ok for both cases; the difference is that Linux developers are not the court, and can use whatever excuse they like.
      - nix23 6y ago
        >the difference is that Linux developers are not the court The difference is that they cannot afford to leave every Nvidia GPU owner out.

by cesarb 6y ago

nix23 6y ago

>The kernel+ZFS can be considered a derived work from both What?? No why?...no one of those project is derived from each other, ZFS is a module (on all platforms i think). >and they consider the CDDL to be incompatible with the GPL https://zonena.me/2019/01/the-cddl-is-not-incompatible-with-the-gpl/ https://zonena.me/2019/01/the-cddl-is-not-incompatible-with-... That's the important part: >You may distribute the Executable form of the Covered Software under the terms of this License or under the terms of a license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this License, provided that You are in compliance with the terms of this License and that the license for the Executable form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients rights in the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. >To reiterate, executable forms of CDDL source code can be under ANY license you want. That means your compiled ZFS module package can even be under GPL2 or 3 or beerware ;)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cesarb 6y ago
> no one of those project is derived from each other, ZFS is a module (on all platforms i think) Once compiled, the ZFS module is a derived work from both the Linux kernel and ZFS. > > You may distribute the Executable form of the Covered Software under the terms of this License or under the terms of a license of Your choice [...] does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients rights in the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. > That means your compiled ZFS module package can even be under GPL2 or 3 or beerware I trust the Red Hat lawyers on this matter more than someone who is not a lawyer (from that page: "While it's true that I am not a lawyer [...]"). And from what I understand (I'm also not a lawyer), that clause in the CDDL applies only to the compiled result; but the GPL requires that, if the compiled result is distributed as GPL, the corresponding source code also be available under the GPL. So you cannot distribute your compiled ZFS module package under GPL2 unless the corresponding source code can also be distributed under GPL2.
- nix23 6y ago
  >Once compiled, the ZFS module is a derived work from both the Linux kernel and ZFS. Really? So if i compile something with gcc it is a derived work from gcc and gcc is derived work from my bin? Or when i make a firefox extension it's a derived work of firefox? Compile the nvidia module...a derived work from linux? >I trust the Red Hat lawyers on this matter more than someone who is not a lawyer But he can read :) but hey whatever, really not interested if linux has something good like DTrace ZFS or Crossbow, they like the NIH-Syndrome and i am ok with that too.
  - cesarb 6y ago
    > So if i compile something with gcc it is a derived work from gcc Yes. This is why the "libgcc exception" (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.en.html) exists. The issue is that parts of runtime libraries which come with gcc are statically linked into the compiled executable; without that exception, the result would have to be under the GPL. The same issue happens with Linux kernel modules. Many functions they need are only defined as macros or inline functions in the headers (since ZFS is a filesystem, just take a look at how many inline functions there are in include/linux/fs.h). And even outside of these, many functions are so closely coupled to the internal data structures of the kernel (and the data structures themselves are also exposed to modules) that any module using them could be considered a derived work of the kernel.

trasz 6y ago

How about closed source NVidia drivers, or ESX? It’s also derived work, yet there are no licensing problems.

nix23 6y ago
His rhetoric is like: Fedora has problems with it :)
comex 6y ago
In Nvidia’s case, they have an open-source shim layer in between the kernel and the closed-source bulk of the driver. In theory, the shim layer is a derived work of the kernel, but the closed-source part is not. I’d say that’s a bit of a dubious argument, but who knows? It’s never gone to court. Search for “GPL condom”. As for ESX, that has gone to court: https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-developer-abandons-vmware-lawsuit/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-developer-abandons-vmwar...
- nix23 6y ago
  >"GPL condom” Ahh its ok for the driver but not for net-code? https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/04/gpl_condom_nvidia_linux_kernel/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/04/gpl_condom_nvidia_lin... See that's exactly the Linux Problem... By the way...Linus is not ok with a ZFS GPL shimlayer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22005901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22005901
  - trasz 6y ago
    It would probably be equally ok for both cases; the difference is that Linux developers are not the court, and can use whatever excuse they like.
    - nix23 6y ago
      >the difference is that Linux developers are not the court The difference is that they cannot afford to leave every Nvidia GPU owner out.