3 ms·
Not just NVIDIA, ZFS too. From the GPL perspective, any non GPL compatible license is considered the same way. That said, that part of the GPL on library linki
by my123 4y ago
Not just NVIDIA, ZFS too. From the GPL perspective, any non GPL compatible license is considered the same way.
That said, that part of the GPL on library linking was never attempted to be enforced in court.
For additional entertainment: redistributing a linked GPL program to a non-GPL compatible non-OS bundled (those have an exception) library is supposed to be forbidden too, but is very often done. For example, for the Visual C++ runtimes.
It’s supposed to not be okay according to the FSF, which does quite some overreach in their FAQs. A reminder that the FAQs themselves are _not_ part of the license.
- pabs3 4y agoThere is a way that Oracle could solve the ZFS situation; release a CDDLv2 that is compatible with the GPL, then the CDDLv1 auto-upgrade clause would mean that all CDDLv1 software that hasn't opted out of the upgrade clause would now be GPL compatible. Some parts of OpenZFS would need to be relicensed or reimplemented, but that job would be much smaller than reimplementing ZFS for GPL compatibility. More discussion here: https://lwn.net/Articles/894901/ https://lwn.net/Articles/894901/