3 ms·

Would Oracle relicensing it be able to change anything? OpenZFS and ZFS split over a decade ago, does the OpenZFS project have the right to relicense everything

Would Oracle relicensing it be able to change anything? OpenZFS and ZFS split over a decade ago, does the OpenZFS project have the right to relicense everything they've done in that time?

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
Yeah, Illumos and then OpenZFS very specifically avoided contributor license agreements after Oracle demonstrated the ultimate failure mode of that model (by closing OpenSolaris); if Oracle had had the sense to immediately re-license ZFS to GPLv2 or dual-licensed it could have worked, but it's a decade too late now. (Incidentally, I have never understood why they didn't do exactly this; ZFS was superior to anything Linux had at the time, and Oracle would have benefited enormously from shipping ZFS as a first-class feature on OEL. Of course, the obvious answer is... Oracle[0].) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=33m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=33m (the meat is closer to 35 minutes in, right around "What you think of Oracle, is even truer than you think it is.")
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >Incidentally, I have never understood why they didn't do exactly this; ZFS was superior to anything Linux had at the time, and Oracle would have benefited enormously from shipping ZFS as a first-class feature on OEL I've always figured it's at least partially because someone was too stubborn to give up their work creating btrfs. Though relicensing it to proprietary is Oracle.
doublepg23 5y ago
I have heard arguments that Oracle would now be the License Steward and could change it to be whatever they liked (GPL 2.0, MIT, etc.) which would flow to the OpenZFS project. See section 4: https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0
- p_l 5y ago
  Oracle can create CDDL-1.1 or any other newer version with different terms, but there's no "CDDL 1.0 or newer" license on OpenZFS, nor is Oracle sole copyright holder. Another issue is that what is specifically a problem with GPLv2 is that CDDL-1.0 provides patent litigation indemnity, losing which would be a big problem.
  - pmarreck 5y ago
    So this means any software licensed with CDDL couldn't be sued for loss of business if there was a technical glitch, or? I mean, with an open source license, who could get sued, anyway? The current steward of the main repo?
    - p_l 5y ago
      Pretty much every license it there disclaims any responsibility. CDDL has provisions that mean that Oracle can't sue you for (hypothetical) patent infringement in ZFS code because Sun gave automatic license to those patents when it released code under CDDL
trasz 5y ago
It would change a lot - if ZFS got relicensed as GPL, users would lose the patent protection granted by CDDL, opening the possibility of being sued by Oracle.

Would Oracle relicensing it be able to change anything? OpenZFS and ZFS split over a decade ago, does the OpenZFS project have the right to relicense everything they've done in that time?

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago

Yeah, Illumos and then OpenZFS very specifically avoided contributor license agreements after Oracle demonstrated the ultimate failure mode of that model (by closing OpenSolaris); if Oracle had had the sense to immediately re-license ZFS to GPLv2 or dual-licensed it could have worked, but it's a decade too late now. (Incidentally, I have never understood why they didn't do exactly this; ZFS was superior to anything Linux had at the time, and Oracle would have benefited enormously from shipping ZFS as a first-class feature on OEL. Of course, the obvious answer is... Oracle[0].) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=33m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=33m (the meat is closer to 35 minutes in, right around "What you think of Oracle, is even truer than you think it is.")

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Incidentally, I have never understood why they didn't do exactly this; ZFS was superior to anything Linux had at the time, and Oracle would have benefited enormously from shipping ZFS as a first-class feature on OEL I've always figured it's at least partially because someone was too stubborn to give up their work creating btrfs. Though relicensing it to proprietary is Oracle.

doublepg23 5y ago

I have heard arguments that Oracle would now be the License Steward and could change it to be whatever they liked (GPL 2.0, MIT, etc.) which would flow to the OpenZFS project. See section 4: https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0

p_l 5y ago
Oracle can create CDDL-1.1 or any other newer version with different terms, but there's no "CDDL 1.0 or newer" license on OpenZFS, nor is Oracle sole copyright holder. Another issue is that what is specifically a problem with GPLv2 is that CDDL-1.0 provides patent litigation indemnity, losing which would be a big problem.
- pmarreck 5y ago
  So this means any software licensed with CDDL couldn't be sued for loss of business if there was a technical glitch, or? I mean, with an open source license, who could get sued, anyway? The current steward of the main repo?
  - p_l 5y ago
    Pretty much every license it there disclaims any responsibility. CDDL has provisions that mean that Oracle can't sue you for (hypothetical) patent infringement in ZFS code because Sun gave automatic license to those patents when it released code under CDDL

trasz 5y ago

It would change a lot - if ZFS got relicensed as GPL, users would lose the patent protection granted by CDDL, opening the possibility of being sued by Oracle.