3 ms·

It boils down to being a contractual dispute, and until the stakeholders decide to spent the millions of dollars to battle it in courts, it'll remain an unanswe

It boils down to being a contractual dispute, and until the stakeholders decide to spent the millions of dollars to battle it in courts, it'll remain an unanswered question. Of course, the difficulty of many GPL projects is in identifying the stakeholders, and getting them to agree on action. The real risk comes from OpenZFS, where the majority of the copyright is held by Oracle (formerly Sun). Oracle is an evil, evil organization in regards to IP, so I can only assume their reason for not taking action is 1) it's not worth their time or 2) they're waiting until a big wealthy organization depends on it before they can spring their trap.

lproven 5y ago
> they're waiting until a big wealthy organization depends on it > before they can spring their trap I don't think they can any more. The principle of laches applies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) This is why Microsoft's threats against the Linux desktop in around 2007 failed: the IP that they claimed, the Windows 95 desktop look and feel -- Start menu, taskbar etc. -- is stuff that Microsoft 100% did invent, but 12 years later is... Well, _the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ was published 42 years ago today, and it still rings true. To quote Chapter 3 of the Guide: "You've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now." ZFS has been included in Ubuntu since 16.04. Oracle has known and has had five years to raise an objection. It has not done so. It is now too late, by the principle of laches. It may try, of course, but the lawsuit should be pretty brief because the defense is right there: why didn't Oracle file a complaint in 2016?
- AceJohnny2 5y ago
  Thanks, good to know!
AceJohnny2 5y ago
> Of course, the difficulty of many GPL projects is in identifying the stakeholders, and getting them to agree on action. I should highlight that this is the reason the FSF has the "copyright assignement" clause, because they understand well that without it, the GPL is hard to enforce. Sadly, such a clause has been co-opted by other companies to give them the power of relicensing the software under more closed terms.

lproven 5y ago

> they're waiting until a big wealthy organization depends on it > before they can spring their trap I don't think they can any more. The principle of laches applies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) This is why Microsoft's threats against the Linux desktop in around 2007 failed: the IP that they claimed, the Windows 95 desktop look and feel -- Start menu, taskbar etc. -- is stuff that Microsoft 100% did invent, but 12 years later is... Well, _the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ was published 42 years ago today, and it still rings true. To quote Chapter 3 of the Guide: "You've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now." ZFS has been included in Ubuntu since 16.04. Oracle has known and has had five years to raise an objection. It has not done so. It is now too late, by the principle of laches. It may try, of course, but the lawsuit should be pretty brief because the defense is right there: why didn't Oracle file a complaint in 2016?

AceJohnny2 5y ago
Thanks, good to know!

AceJohnny2 5y ago

> Of course, the difficulty of many GPL projects is in identifying the stakeholders, and getting them to agree on action. I should highlight that this is the reason the FSF has the "copyright assignement" clause, because they understand well that without it, the GPL is hard to enforce. Sadly, such a clause has been co-opted by other companies to give them the power of relicensing the software under more closed terms.