5 ms·

> 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 appli

> 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.
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    > "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. They are, at least, actual lawyers. > I thought that was clear enough from ... reading the linked post. However, I do feel it naturally follows from what he says. No, it doesn't. If OpenAFS is a derived work, then it is in violation of the GPL to distribute it at all. i.e. _it cannot exist_ for all practical purposes. If OpenAFS is not a derived work, then you can distribute it. You can still work on it, distribute it, and individual users may combine it with Linux on their own machines. Under no circumstances you can distribute a Linux kernel combined with a non-GPL-compatible module and call it a day. Note that this does not depend _at all_ on whether OpenAFS is a derived work or not. The kernel combined with OpenAFS _for sure_ is a derived work of the kernel ( you really need the courts to determine that?) , and you can't distribute that without violating the GPL. AND the CDDL. What Ubuntu does is stretching it (they never distribute binaries, only aggregate sources, which supposedly the user can one-click-combine into a derived work).
    - mustache_kimono 3y ago
      > They are, at least, actual lawyers. Are they? > Under no circumstances you can distribute a Linux kernel combined with a non-GPL-compatible module and call it a day. That's exactly the Q presented -- whether the ZFS module/s licensed as CDDL is GPL compatible. I am arguing it is. > From GPLv2, Section 2: "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. 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, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." If the module is not a derived work, then my understanding is you can distribute them with "the Program". See also GPLv2, Section 3. > What Ubuntu does is stretching it (they never distribute binaries, only aggregate sources, which supposedly the user can one-click-combine into a derived work). My understanding is that this is incorrect. Canonical ships a fully built and linked zfs.ko in a separate package from the main kernel image. See: https://packages.ubuntu.com/kinetic/amd64/linux-modules-5.19.0-21-generic/filelist https://packages.ubuntu.com/kinetic/amd64/linux-modules-5.19...

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.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  > "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. They are, at least, actual lawyers. > I thought that was clear enough from ... reading the linked post. However, I do feel it naturally follows from what he says. No, it doesn't. If OpenAFS is a derived work, then it is in violation of the GPL to distribute it at all. i.e. _it cannot exist_ for all practical purposes. If OpenAFS is not a derived work, then you can distribute it. You can still work on it, distribute it, and individual users may combine it with Linux on their own machines. Under no circumstances you can distribute a Linux kernel combined with a non-GPL-compatible module and call it a day. Note that this does not depend _at all_ on whether OpenAFS is a derived work or not. The kernel combined with OpenAFS _for sure_ is a derived work of the kernel ( you really need the courts to determine that?) , and you can't distribute that without violating the GPL. AND the CDDL. What Ubuntu does is stretching it (they never distribute binaries, only aggregate sources, which supposedly the user can one-click-combine into a derived work).
  - mustache_kimono 3y ago
    > They are, at least, actual lawyers. Are they? > Under no circumstances you can distribute a Linux kernel combined with a non-GPL-compatible module and call it a day. That's exactly the Q presented -- whether the ZFS module/s licensed as CDDL is GPL compatible. I am arguing it is. > From GPLv2, Section 2: "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. 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, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." If the module is not a derived work, then my understanding is you can distribute them with "the Program". See also GPLv2, Section 3. > What Ubuntu does is stretching it (they never distribute binaries, only aggregate sources, which supposedly the user can one-click-combine into a derived work). My understanding is that this is incorrect. Canonical ships a fully built and linked zfs.ko in a separate package from the main kernel image. See: https://packages.ubuntu.com/kinetic/amd64/linux-modules-5.19.0-21-generic/filelist https://packages.ubuntu.com/kinetic/amd64/linux-modules-5.19...