5 ms·

>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 platfor

by 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
      Are data structures copyrightable? The headers are not, and macros can be easily avoided. And in any case, there's an easy way to prove something does not constitute a derived work: just show that it can work outside of the codebase it's allegedly a derived work of. The reason NVidia is safe is that they provide the same driver for FreeBSD.
      - toast0 6y ago
        Can you use a module compiled for Linux anywhere but a Linux host? The ZFS source code probably isn't a derived work, but the compiled module might be.

by nix23 6y ago

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
    Are data structures copyrightable? The headers are not, and macros can be easily avoided. And in any case, there's an easy way to prove something does not constitute a derived work: just show that it can work outside of the codebase it's allegedly a derived work of. The reason NVidia is safe is that they provide the same driver for FreeBSD.
    - toast0 6y ago
      Can you use a module compiled for Linux anywhere but a Linux host? The ZFS source code probably isn't a derived work, but the compiled module might be.