3 ms·

> "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 h

> "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
  > Are they? What's this, ELIZA ? > I am arguing it is. That's new: none of the arguments you've presented has helped make that case yet. I don't understand why you keep trying to argue whether the "ZFS module" _by itself_ is a derived work or not. It is irrelevant. You are distributing _the entire work_, which is obviously derived from the Linux kernel since it literally _contains it_ (or an almost verbatim copy of it). The paragraph you yourself quoted literally says the entire distribution must then be on the terms of this license (GPL), which the CDDL _forbids_. The GPL has exceptions for "aggregation" but as I said in my opinion what Ubuntu is doing crosses the line. It can hardly be claimed to be aggregation when literally the module they ship is strictly designed to work with the kernel they ship, and it is absolutely useless otherwise. Such interpretation basically makes the LGPL meaningless.
  - mustache_kimono 3y ago
    > What's this, ELIZA ? Do you know if any of these FSF "interpretations" are written by attorneys? I'm curious. Here[0], re: ZFS, Stallman says he solicited advice from others, at least one an attorney, but AFAIK Stallman alone is the named author. But I generally don't trust 2nd hand legal opinions of attorneys, who won't publish under their own name, and don't work for me. > I don't understand why you keep trying to argue whether the "ZFS module" _by itself_ is a derived work or not. You are distributing _the entire work_, which is obviously derived from the Linux kernel since it literally _contains it_ (or an almost verbatim copy of it). This is obviously a point of disagreement. You might see [1], written by an actual attorney and expert in these issues: "With the ambiguous definitions in the GPL, and rather paltry protections provided to software under the Copyright Act, kernel module code likely falls outside of the definition of 'derivative works.'" > The paragraph you yourself quoted literally says the entire distribution must then be on the terms of this license (GPL), which the CDDL _forbids_. Again [1], re: the paragraph I quoted and Section 0, it notes: "...[T]he GPL fails to make the distinction between a work containing the Program and a work based on the Program, or collective and derivative works as Congress defined them under the act. Combining these terms into a single all-encompassing definition is illogical, especially given the GPL’s reference in the same sentence to copyright law and the importance of those legal terms of art under the act." Which I have to agree with! When the GPL says "The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a 1) "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:" and then says 2) "that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language." The correct interpretation is not to conflate two distinct copyright terms. That actually the GPL applies to both. It's to read out the clearly illogical, contradictory language. [0]: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux [1]: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2301697/encouraging-closed-source-modules-part-1--copyright-and-software.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2301697/encouraging-clo...

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
> Are they? What's this, ELIZA ? > I am arguing it is. That's new: none of the arguments you've presented has helped make that case yet. I don't understand why you keep trying to argue whether the "ZFS module" _by itself_ is a derived work or not. It is irrelevant. You are distributing _the entire work_, which is obviously derived from the Linux kernel since it literally _contains it_ (or an almost verbatim copy of it). The paragraph you yourself quoted literally says the entire distribution must then be on the terms of this license (GPL), which the CDDL _forbids_. The GPL has exceptions for "aggregation" but as I said in my opinion what Ubuntu is doing crosses the line. It can hardly be claimed to be aggregation when literally the module they ship is strictly designed to work with the kernel they ship, and it is absolutely useless otherwise. Such interpretation basically makes the LGPL meaningless.
- mustache_kimono 3y ago
  > What's this, ELIZA ? Do you know if any of these FSF "interpretations" are written by attorneys? I'm curious. Here[0], re: ZFS, Stallman says he solicited advice from others, at least one an attorney, but AFAIK Stallman alone is the named author. But I generally don't trust 2nd hand legal opinions of attorneys, who won't publish under their own name, and don't work for me. > I don't understand why you keep trying to argue whether the "ZFS module" _by itself_ is a derived work or not. You are distributing _the entire work_, which is obviously derived from the Linux kernel since it literally _contains it_ (or an almost verbatim copy of it). This is obviously a point of disagreement. You might see [1], written by an actual attorney and expert in these issues: "With the ambiguous definitions in the GPL, and rather paltry protections provided to software under the Copyright Act, kernel module code likely falls outside of the definition of 'derivative works.'" > The paragraph you yourself quoted literally says the entire distribution must then be on the terms of this license (GPL), which the CDDL _forbids_. Again [1], re: the paragraph I quoted and Section 0, it notes: "...[T]he GPL fails to make the distinction between a work containing the Program and a work based on the Program, or collective and derivative works as Congress defined them under the act. Combining these terms into a single all-encompassing definition is illogical, especially given the GPL’s reference in the same sentence to copyright law and the importance of those legal terms of art under the act." Which I have to agree with! When the GPL says "The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a 1) "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:" and then says 2) "that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language." The correct interpretation is not to conflate two distinct copyright terms. That actually the GPL applies to both. It's to read out the clearly illogical, contradictory language. [0]: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux [1]: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2301697/encouraging-closed-source-modules-part-1--copyright-and-software.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2301697/encouraging-clo...