7 ms·

I don't think this deserves the down votes. I love ZFS, use ZFS and I'd still say that the licensing issue is real. Just because Oracle hasn't sued Canonical do

I don't think this deserves the down votes. I love ZFS, use ZFS and I'd still say that the licensing issue is real. Just because Oracle hasn't sued Canonical doesn't mean they can't or won't.

hnlmorg 6y ago
Please excuse the ignorant question, but what grounds would Oracle have to sue Canonical? OpenZFS is still open source and available on FreeBSD (amongst others). The licence might not be GPL compatible but the way ZFS is shipped on Linux there isn't any GPL/CDDL mixed code bases (and it's not like there isn't already a long history of GPL-incompatible software licences with Linux kernel modules anyway).
- jblwps 6y ago
  IIRC, The GPL incompatibility prohibits distribution of linked binaries. Since the CDDL-licensed ZFS kernel modules have to be linked against the kernel, those compiled modules can't be distributed. Hence, Canonical (or anyone else trying to re-release under the CDDL) cannot distribute binaries of the kernel modules. However, you are fully allowed to compile and link the two on your own. This is why the alternative to binary distribution is compiling yourself with the help of DKMS.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    With the two licenses incompatibility, the GPL is the one that would be violated, not the CDDL. So any Linux contributor would have the right to sue, including Oracle who presumably have committed to Linux. However, Oracle owning ZFS gives them no extra grounds to sue over OpenZFS.
- diffeomorphism 6y ago
  "The way it is shipped" differs by distro and the message by non-ubuntu distros is that the way ubuntu ships zfs seems legally risky to them. Ubuntu disagrees and they might be right (isle of man jurisdiction IIRC?), but their legal theory has not been tested and oracle has a reputation.
  - hnlmorg 6y ago
    Even so, it's not CDDL (OpenZFS) license which is being violated but GPL (Linux).
- rleigh 6y ago
  The licensing incompatibility is not arising from the CDDL licence, but the GPL. You can combine the CDDL with pretty much anything. As a result, it would be extraordinarily difficult for Oracle to sue since it would not be the CDDL licence terms which were infringed.
  - hnlmorg 6y ago
    This was my takeaway as well. Which is why I was puzzled by the comments about Oracle suing Canonical. That said, boomboomsubban (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24331590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24331590) suggested Oracle could sue on the GPL side of things since they have committed code to Linux. It would be interesting if such a position is possible and I suspect that could open the door to all sorts of frivolousness cases (eg closed binaries shipped with Android).
boomboomsubban 6y ago
As explained in a post deeper in the comments, any Linux contributor could sue, Oracle has no special ability to sue based on their ownership of ZFS.

I don't think this deserves the down votes. I love ZFS, use ZFS and I'd still say that the licensing issue is real. Just because Oracle hasn't sued Canonical doesn't mean they can't or won't.

hnlmorg 6y ago

Please excuse the ignorant question, but what grounds would Oracle have to sue Canonical? OpenZFS is still open source and available on FreeBSD (amongst others). The licence might not be GPL compatible but the way ZFS is shipped on Linux there isn't any GPL/CDDL mixed code bases (and it's not like there isn't already a long history of GPL-incompatible software licences with Linux kernel modules anyway).

jblwps 6y ago
IIRC, The GPL incompatibility prohibits distribution of linked binaries. Since the CDDL-licensed ZFS kernel modules have to be linked against the kernel, those compiled modules can't be distributed. Hence, Canonical (or anyone else trying to re-release under the CDDL) cannot distribute binaries of the kernel modules. However, you are fully allowed to compile and link the two on your own. This is why the alternative to binary distribution is compiling yourself with the help of DKMS.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  With the two licenses incompatibility, the GPL is the one that would be violated, not the CDDL. So any Linux contributor would have the right to sue, including Oracle who presumably have committed to Linux. However, Oracle owning ZFS gives them no extra grounds to sue over OpenZFS.
diffeomorphism 6y ago
"The way it is shipped" differs by distro and the message by non-ubuntu distros is that the way ubuntu ships zfs seems legally risky to them. Ubuntu disagrees and they might be right (isle of man jurisdiction IIRC?), but their legal theory has not been tested and oracle has a reputation.
- hnlmorg 6y ago
  Even so, it's not CDDL (OpenZFS) license which is being violated but GPL (Linux).
rleigh 6y ago
The licensing incompatibility is not arising from the CDDL licence, but the GPL. You can combine the CDDL with pretty much anything. As a result, it would be extraordinarily difficult for Oracle to sue since it would not be the CDDL licence terms which were infringed.
- hnlmorg 6y ago
  This was my takeaway as well. Which is why I was puzzled by the comments about Oracle suing Canonical. That said, boomboomsubban (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24331590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24331590) suggested Oracle could sue on the GPL side of things since they have committed code to Linux. It would be interesting if such a position is possible and I suspect that could open the door to all sorts of frivolousness cases (eg closed binaries shipped with Android).

boomboomsubban 6y ago

As explained in a post deeper in the comments, any Linux contributor could sue, Oracle has no special ability to sue based on their ownership of ZFS.