6 ms·

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

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.

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.