6 ms·

OpenZFS is already free and open source. Linux kernel developers should just stop punching themselves in face. One way to solve the ZFS issue, Linus Torvalds

OpenZFS is already free and open source. Linux kernel developers should just stop punching themselves in face. One way to solve the ZFS issue, Linus Torvalds could call a meeting of project leadership, and say, "Can we all agree that OpenZFS is not a derived work of Linux? It seems pretty obvious to anyone who understands the meaning of copyright term of art 'derived work' and the origin of ZFS ... Good. We shall add a commit which indicates such to the COPYING file [0], like we have for programs that interface at the syscall boundary to clear up any further confusion." Can you imagine trying to bring a copyright infringement suit (with no damages!) in such an instance? The ZFS hair shirt is a self imposed by semi-religious Linux wackadoos. [0]: See, https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/LICENSES/excep...

AshamedCaptain 3y ago
Even if you were to be able to say that OpenZFS is not a derived work of Linux, all it would allow you to do is to distribute OpenZFS. You would _still_ not be able to distribute OpenZFS + Linux as a combined work. (I am one of these guys who thinks what Ubuntu is doing is crossing the line. To package two pieces of software whose license forbids you from distributing their combination in a way that "they are not combined but can be combined with a single click" is stretching it too much. ) It would be much simpler for Oracle to simply relicense older versions of ZFS under another license.
- mustache_kimono 3y ago
  > Even if you were to be able to say that OpenZFS is not a derived work of Linux, all it would allow you to do is to distribute OpenZFS. You would _still_ not be able to distribute OpenZFS + Linux as a combined work. Why? Linus said such modules and distribution were acceptable re: AFS, an instance which is directly on point. See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228 https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    Where is he saying that you can distribute the combined work? That would not only violate the GPL, it would also violate AFS's license... The only thing he's saying that there is that he's not even 100% sure whether AFS module is a derived work or not (if it was, it would be a violation _just to distribute the module by itself_!). Go imagine what his opinion will be on someone distributing a kernel already almost pre-linked with ZFS. Not that it matters, since he's not the license author not even the copyright holder these days...
    - mustache_kimono 3y ago
      > Where is he saying that you can distribute the combined work? What's your reasoning as to why one couldn't, if we grant Linus's reasoning re: AFS as it applies to ZFS? > Not that it matters, since he's not the license author not even the copyright holder these days... Linux kernel community has seen fit to give its assurances re: other clarifications/exceptions. See the COPYING file.
      - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
        > What's your reasoning as to why one couldn't Simply put, because it's a license incompatible with the GPL, as it literally says so on the page of the creators of the GPL, Wikipedia, etc. > if we grant Linus's reasoning re: AFS as it applies to ZFS? You are the one claiming that Linus reasoning implies the AFS code combined with the Linux kernel _can be distributed_. Linux is not actually saying that in the post you quoted. I am asking for where he says that. > Linux kernel community has seen fit to give its assurances re: other clarifications/exceptions. See the COPYING file. It doesn't really matter; not one individual can grant "an exception" unless it was already allowed to begin with (the GPL _explicitly_ grants the system library exception). Linus even says so in the very beginning of the post you quoted ("No such exception exists. There's a clarification [...]").
        mustache_kimono 3y ago
        > Simply put, because it's a license incompatible with the GPL, as it literally says so on the page of the creators of the GPL, Wikipedia, etc. > not one individual can grant "an exception" "The creators of the GPL"? You mean the FSF? If you don't think Linus and the kernel devs have standing, what standing or authority do the FSF and Wikipedia have? Neither are a licensor of the Linux kernel either. I'm saying the Linux kernel devs have seen fit to give their view, and they think it carries weight, and seems to govern the actual practice and use, and this would seem to be another analogous instance where they could give their view again. > You are the one claiming that Linus reasoning implies the AFS code combined with the Linux kernel _can be distributed_. Linux is not actually saying that in the post you quoted. I am asking for where he says that. Linus doesn't explicitly say this in that post. I thought that was clear enough from ... reading the linked post. However, I do feel it naturally follows from what he says. Otherwise, this discussion would have an angels on the head of a pin quality (which we're talking about the GPL on the internet, so...). Perhaps we simply disagree about the underlying copyright jurisprudence? After all, you might say, the GPLv2 states: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License,..." and "a 'work based on the Program' means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law". Maybe, you say, ZFS is a "derived work" under copyright law, if not a "derived work" given the plain meaning of derived work? I happen to believe that courts would not be sympathetic to broad claims of what is "derived" software/infringement, like those made by the FSF, and have not been since Computer Associates v. Altai (and a long line of other cases). For example, you might see Sega v. Accolade, where a court of appeals held that Accolade could reverse engineer Sega’s video game system to create games that ran on the system, even though it involved copying Sega’s code. And I happen to believe the FSF has misled the FOSS community as to the state of the underlying copyright law with their (mis)interpretations of their licenses.
rascul 3y ago
Linus has some words on this matter: > And honestly, there is no way I can merge any of the ZFS efforts until I get an official letter from Oracle that is signed by their main legal counsel or preferably by Larry Ellison himself that says that yes, it's ok to do so and treat the end result as GPL'd. > Other people think it can be ok to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it ok, and that's their decision. But considering Oracle's litigious nature, and the questions over licensing, there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so. > And I'm not at all interested in some "ZFS shim layer" thing either that some people seem to think would isolate the two projects. That adds no value to our side, and given Oracle's interface copyright suits (see Java), I don't think it's any real licensing win either. https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpostid=189841 https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpost...
- mustache_kimono 3y ago
  > Linus has some words on this matter: I hate to point this out, but this only demonstrates Linux Torvalds doesn't know much about copyright law. Linus could just as easily say "I was wrong. Sorry! As you all know -- IANAL. It's time we remedied this stupid chapter in our history. After all, I gave similar assurances to the AFS module when it was open sourced under a GPL incompatible license in 2003." Linus's other words on the matter[0]: > But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)? > THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux behaviour. [0]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228 https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228
  - josephg 3y ago
    > I hate to point this out, but this only demonstrates Linux Torvalds doesn't know much about copyright law. Maybe. When I was young I had an honestly awful employment contract waved under my nose that I was expected to sign. It included waivers of "moral rights" - like the company was allowed to give credit for my work to someone else and lie and say I never contributed to a project I worked on. I felt weird about it, so I talked to some senior people I respected. Some of the advice I got was that the existence of a signed contract only gave the employer cover to could sue me if they wanted to. But if a company starts suing ex-employees over things that sound capricious and unfair, even if they win the court case its an incredibly bad look. Doing so would probably cost them employees and customers. So in a very real sense, particularly awful terms would never be enforced anyway. This cuts the other way when it comes to Linux, ZFS and Oracle. Imagine Linux includes ZFS in the kernel. Oracle decides that maybe they can claim that linux is thus a derived work of ZFS. Ridiculous, but that might be enough cover to start suing companies who use linux. If it went to court they might eventually lose. So they don't go after Google. They sue smaller companies. They sue Notion. They sue banks. They sue random YC companies right after a raise. And then they graciously offer to settle each time for a mere hundreds of thousands of dollars. Much less than the court case would cost. It doesn't matter that they're legally in the wrong. Without a court case to demonstrate that they're wrong, they get to play mafia boss and make a killing. This really hurts Linux - which gets a reputation as a business liability. And thats what Linus wants to avoid. I'm sure Apple has fantastic lawyers. It might surprise you to learn that Apple's lawyers came to the same decision as Linus. Apple was in the process of transitioning MacOS to ZFS when Oracle bought SUN (and by extension acquired ZFS). They'd done all the technical work to make that happen - and they were set to announce it at WWDC, launching ZFS as a headlining feature of the next version of macos. But after oracle got involved, they pulled the plug on the project and threw out all their work. We can only assume Apple's lawyers considered it too big of a legal liability. Even if they might have won the court case, they didn't want to take the risk. Cheaper in the long run to make their own ZFS-like filesystem (APFS) instead. So thats what they did.
arp242 3y ago
It's not that simple because the compatibility is from both ends; the CDDL states: > Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. … > You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License Now, you can argue up and down and left and right whether this applies on including the CDDL code in a GPL project (with or without exception), but the fact remains that anyone can sue anyone for any reason, and as long as the complaint is not so ludicrous that a judge will throw it out – which this complain isn't – you're going to end up helping out lawyers with their retirement fund. Linus in general is far more pragmatic about these sort of license issues than, say, the FSF or Stallman. The problem isn't on the Linux end, the problem is "someone may sue our pants off 10 or 20 years down the road". Remember that BSD lawsuit in the 90s? That kind of stuff. Even if Oracle wasn't the Oracle we know and love today it would still be a risk: things can change in the future, companies get taken over.
- mustache_kimono 3y ago
  > It's not that simple because the compatibility is from both ends; the CDDL states: After reading this and thinking about it, I don't understand any argument a CDDL copyright holder would have against Linux? It frankly doesn't make any sense. You're going to have to explain the "Why?" of this. Start with -- "The facts are ... so the claim is ..." > Linus in general is far more pragmatic about these sort of license issues than, say, the FSF or Stallman. I wish they both, Linus and Stallman, would stop living in the 1980s. Both don't seem to understand modern copyright jurisprudence, from and including Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.. I'm not sure it's intentional, but they certainly have both misled the public about what the GPLv2 entails, and their misinformation re: ZFS has been particularly egregious. > Even if Oracle wasn't the Oracle we know and love today it would still be a risk: things can change in the future, companies get taken over. AFAICT there is nothing special about Oracle as a litigant in this instance. AFAICT any Linux copyright holder would have have standing to bring suit.
  - 3y ago

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

Even if you were to be able to say that OpenZFS is not a derived work of Linux, all it would allow you to do is to distribute OpenZFS. You would _still_ not be able to distribute OpenZFS + Linux as a combined work. (I am one of these guys who thinks what Ubuntu is doing is crossing the line. To package two pieces of software whose license forbids you from distributing their combination in a way that "they are not combined but can be combined with a single click" is stretching it too much. ) It would be much simpler for Oracle to simply relicense older versions of ZFS under another license.

mustache_kimono 3y ago
> Even if you were to be able to say that OpenZFS is not a derived work of Linux, all it would allow you to do is to distribute OpenZFS. You would _still_ not be able to distribute OpenZFS + Linux as a combined work. Why? Linus said such modules and distribution were acceptable re: AFS, an instance which is directly on point. See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228 https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  Where is he saying that you can distribute the combined work? That would not only violate the GPL, it would also violate AFS's license... The only thing he's saying that there is that he's not even 100% sure whether AFS module is a derived work or not (if it was, it would be a violation _just to distribute the module by itself_!). Go imagine what his opinion will be on someone distributing a kernel already almost pre-linked with ZFS. Not that it matters, since he's not the license author not even the copyright holder these days...
  - mustache_kimono 3y ago
    > Where is he saying that you can distribute the combined work? What's your reasoning as to why one couldn't, if we grant Linus's reasoning re: AFS as it applies to ZFS? > Not that it matters, since he's not the license author not even the copyright holder these days... Linux kernel community has seen fit to give its assurances re: other clarifications/exceptions. See the COPYING file.
    - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
      > What's your reasoning as to why one couldn't Simply put, because it's a license incompatible with the GPL, as it literally says so on the page of the creators of the GPL, Wikipedia, etc. > if we grant Linus's reasoning re: AFS as it applies to ZFS? You are the one claiming that Linus reasoning implies the AFS code combined with the Linux kernel _can be distributed_. Linux is not actually saying that in the post you quoted. I am asking for where he says that. > Linux kernel community has seen fit to give its assurances re: other clarifications/exceptions. See the COPYING file. It doesn't really matter; not one individual can grant "an exception" unless it was already allowed to begin with (the GPL _explicitly_ grants the system library exception). Linus even says so in the very beginning of the post you quoted ("No such exception exists. There's a clarification [...]").
      - mustache_kimono 3y ago
        > Simply put, because it's a license incompatible with the GPL, as it literally says so on the page of the creators of the GPL, Wikipedia, etc. > not one individual can grant "an exception" "The creators of the GPL"? You mean the FSF? If you don't think Linus and the kernel devs have standing, what standing or authority do the FSF and Wikipedia have? Neither are a licensor of the Linux kernel either. I'm saying the Linux kernel devs have seen fit to give their view, and they think it carries weight, and seems to govern the actual practice and use, and this would seem to be another analogous instance where they could give their view again. > You are the one claiming that Linus reasoning implies the AFS code combined with the Linux kernel _can be distributed_. Linux is not actually saying that in the post you quoted. I am asking for where he says that. Linus doesn't explicitly say this in that post. I thought that was clear enough from ... reading the linked post. However, I do feel it naturally follows from what he says. Otherwise, this discussion would have an angels on the head of a pin quality (which we're talking about the GPL on the internet, so...). Perhaps we simply disagree about the underlying copyright jurisprudence? After all, you might say, the GPLv2 states: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License,..." and "a 'work based on the Program' means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law". Maybe, you say, ZFS is a "derived work" under copyright law, if not a "derived work" given the plain meaning of derived work? I happen to believe that courts would not be sympathetic to broad claims of what is "derived" software/infringement, like those made by the FSF, and have not been since Computer Associates v. Altai (and a long line of other cases). For example, you might see Sega v. Accolade, where a court of appeals held that Accolade could reverse engineer Sega’s video game system to create games that ran on the system, even though it involved copying Sega’s code. And I happen to believe the FSF has misled the FOSS community as to the state of the underlying copyright law with their (mis)interpretations of their licenses.

rascul 3y ago

Linus has some words on this matter: > And honestly, there is no way I can merge any of the ZFS efforts until I get an official letter from Oracle that is signed by their main legal counsel or preferably by Larry Ellison himself that says that yes, it's ok to do so and treat the end result as GPL'd. > Other people think it can be ok to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it ok, and that's their decision. But considering Oracle's litigious nature, and the questions over licensing, there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so. > And I'm not at all interested in some "ZFS shim layer" thing either that some people seem to think would isolate the two projects. That adds no value to our side, and given Oracle's interface copyright suits (see Java), I don't think it's any real licensing win either. https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpostid=189841 https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpost...

mustache_kimono 3y ago
> Linus has some words on this matter: I hate to point this out, but this only demonstrates Linux Torvalds doesn't know much about copyright law. Linus could just as easily say "I was wrong. Sorry! As you all know -- IANAL. It's time we remedied this stupid chapter in our history. After all, I gave similar assurances to the AFS module when it was open sourced under a GPL incompatible license in 2003." Linus's other words on the matter[0]: > But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)? > THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux behaviour. [0]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228 https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228
- josephg 3y ago
  > I hate to point this out, but this only demonstrates Linux Torvalds doesn't know much about copyright law. Maybe. When I was young I had an honestly awful employment contract waved under my nose that I was expected to sign. It included waivers of "moral rights" - like the company was allowed to give credit for my work to someone else and lie and say I never contributed to a project I worked on. I felt weird about it, so I talked to some senior people I respected. Some of the advice I got was that the existence of a signed contract only gave the employer cover to could sue me if they wanted to. But if a company starts suing ex-employees over things that sound capricious and unfair, even if they win the court case its an incredibly bad look. Doing so would probably cost them employees and customers. So in a very real sense, particularly awful terms would never be enforced anyway. This cuts the other way when it comes to Linux, ZFS and Oracle. Imagine Linux includes ZFS in the kernel. Oracle decides that maybe they can claim that linux is thus a derived work of ZFS. Ridiculous, but that might be enough cover to start suing companies who use linux. If it went to court they might eventually lose. So they don't go after Google. They sue smaller companies. They sue Notion. They sue banks. They sue random YC companies right after a raise. And then they graciously offer to settle each time for a mere hundreds of thousands of dollars. Much less than the court case would cost. It doesn't matter that they're legally in the wrong. Without a court case to demonstrate that they're wrong, they get to play mafia boss and make a killing. This really hurts Linux - which gets a reputation as a business liability. And thats what Linus wants to avoid. I'm sure Apple has fantastic lawyers. It might surprise you to learn that Apple's lawyers came to the same decision as Linus. Apple was in the process of transitioning MacOS to ZFS when Oracle bought SUN (and by extension acquired ZFS). They'd done all the technical work to make that happen - and they were set to announce it at WWDC, launching ZFS as a headlining feature of the next version of macos. But after oracle got involved, they pulled the plug on the project and threw out all their work. We can only assume Apple's lawyers considered it too big of a legal liability. Even if they might have won the court case, they didn't want to take the risk. Cheaper in the long run to make their own ZFS-like filesystem (APFS) instead. So thats what they did.

arp242 3y ago

It's not that simple because the compatibility is from both ends; the CDDL states: > Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. … > You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License Now, you can argue up and down and left and right whether this applies on including the CDDL code in a GPL project (with or without exception), but the fact remains that anyone can sue anyone for any reason, and as long as the complaint is not so ludicrous that a judge will throw it out – which this complain isn't – you're going to end up helping out lawyers with their retirement fund. Linus in general is far more pragmatic about these sort of license issues than, say, the FSF or Stallman. The problem isn't on the Linux end, the problem is "someone may sue our pants off 10 or 20 years down the road". Remember that BSD lawsuit in the 90s? That kind of stuff. Even if Oracle wasn't the Oracle we know and love today it would still be a risk: things can change in the future, companies get taken over.

mustache_kimono 3y ago
> It's not that simple because the compatibility is from both ends; the CDDL states: After reading this and thinking about it, I don't understand any argument a CDDL copyright holder would have against Linux? It frankly doesn't make any sense. You're going to have to explain the "Why?" of this. Start with -- "The facts are ... so the claim is ..." > Linus in general is far more pragmatic about these sort of license issues than, say, the FSF or Stallman. I wish they both, Linus and Stallman, would stop living in the 1980s. Both don't seem to understand modern copyright jurisprudence, from and including Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.. I'm not sure it's intentional, but they certainly have both misled the public about what the GPLv2 entails, and their misinformation re: ZFS has been particularly egregious. > Even if Oracle wasn't the Oracle we know and love today it would still be a risk: things can change in the future, companies get taken over. AFAICT there is nothing special about Oracle as a litigant in this instance. AFAICT any Linux copyright holder would have have standing to bring suit.
- 3y ago