26 ms·

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.
        • trasz 6y ago
          They couldn’t even if they wanted to; it’s up to NVidia. Or the court, but we already know NVidia would win the case.
  • trasz 6y ago
    So, ZFS would be in the exact same situation as the NVidia driver - shim layer would be derived work, and the CDDL code wouldn't. It is dubious, sure, but then the whole idea of GPL virality is.