4 ms·

> 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

> 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...

AshamedCaptain 3y ago
You are quoting someone who tries to argue whether the module by itself or not is a derivative work, but I have literally say I find that irrelevant. You literally removed the part where I say "it is irrelevant" when quoting me... You miss the point. I'm not claiming that the GPL applies to ZFS code, most definitely not when it is obviously not derived from any GPL software. Whether the ZFS Linux module is derivative or not I don't care. I am claiming that the GPL applies when you _distribute Linux itself_. What possible point of contention you could have? Linux is obviously GPL... If you are trying to distribute Linux you have to do it under the terms of the GPL, whatever your opinion of them are, in the same way that when you want to _use_ Windows you have to use it under the terms of the Windows EULA, whatever your opinion of Windows is. Unlike the Windows EULA, the GPL doesn't put any limitations to use, so at your own home you can do whatever you want (including combining it with ZFS, if the CDDL were to allow you), but you can't distribute the combined work (because the GPL forbids you to do so)!
- mustache_kimono 3y ago
  > Unlike the Windows EULA, the GPL doesn't put any limitations to use, so at your own home you can do whatever you want (including combining it with ZFS, if the CDDL were to allow you), but you can't distribute the combined work (because the GPL forbids you to do so)! This is what I'm arguing is wrong. GPL explicitly allows distributing a collective/combined work, in contrast to a derived work. See, again, GPLv2, Section 2.
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    Which part exactly you claim allows you to do that? The only which remotely even allows you to do so is the "mere aggregation", and mere aggregation I already mentioned like 2 days ago. The only part you mentioned so far: > 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." Is literally saying that the whole must be licensed under the GPL (note: even whether there are sections that may be considered independent and/or separate and/or derivative and/or whatever), otherwise you just can't distribute it. Just think about it. The LGPL would make no sense if this wasn't the case.
    - mustache_kimono 3y ago
      > Is literally saying that the whole must be licensed under the GPL (note: even whether there are sections that may be considered independent and/or separate and/or derivative and/or whatever), otherwise you just can't distribute it. You seem to think it's very clear what the "whole work" is and that it must include ZFS. See my comment of 2 days ago.[0] Section 2 states "...a whole which is a work based on the Program..." which is, as I've already mentioned, defined at Section 0. I'll say again -- at Section 0, it says "a work based on the Program" is either 1) the licensed program (Linux only), or 2) "any derivative work under copyright law", which ZFS is not, so the combination is such a "mere aggregation." > Just think about it. The LGPL would make no sense if this wasn't the case. Whether the LGPL makes sense or not is not really a concern of mine, but the LGPL also only applies to "derived works" as well. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35914449 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35914449

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

You are quoting someone who tries to argue whether the module by itself or not is a derivative work, but I have literally say I find that irrelevant. You literally removed the part where I say "it is irrelevant" when quoting me... You miss the point. I'm not claiming that the GPL applies to ZFS code, most definitely not when it is obviously not derived from any GPL software. Whether the ZFS Linux module is derivative or not I don't care. I am claiming that the GPL applies when you _distribute Linux itself_. What possible point of contention you could have? Linux is obviously GPL... If you are trying to distribute Linux you have to do it under the terms of the GPL, whatever your opinion of them are, in the same way that when you want to _use_ Windows you have to use it under the terms of the Windows EULA, whatever your opinion of Windows is. Unlike the Windows EULA, the GPL doesn't put any limitations to use, so at your own home you can do whatever you want (including combining it with ZFS, if the CDDL were to allow you), but you can't distribute the combined work (because the GPL forbids you to do so)!

mustache_kimono 3y ago
> Unlike the Windows EULA, the GPL doesn't put any limitations to use, so at your own home you can do whatever you want (including combining it with ZFS, if the CDDL were to allow you), but you can't distribute the combined work (because the GPL forbids you to do so)! This is what I'm arguing is wrong. GPL explicitly allows distributing a collective/combined work, in contrast to a derived work. See, again, GPLv2, Section 2.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  Which part exactly you claim allows you to do that? The only which remotely even allows you to do so is the "mere aggregation", and mere aggregation I already mentioned like 2 days ago. The only part you mentioned so far: > 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." Is literally saying that the whole must be licensed under the GPL (note: even whether there are sections that may be considered independent and/or separate and/or derivative and/or whatever), otherwise you just can't distribute it. Just think about it. The LGPL would make no sense if this wasn't the case.
  - mustache_kimono 3y ago
    > Is literally saying that the whole must be licensed under the GPL (note: even whether there are sections that may be considered independent and/or separate and/or derivative and/or whatever), otherwise you just can't distribute it. You seem to think it's very clear what the "whole work" is and that it must include ZFS. See my comment of 2 days ago.[0] Section 2 states "...a whole which is a work based on the Program..." which is, as I've already mentioned, defined at Section 0. I'll say again -- at Section 0, it says "a work based on the Program" is either 1) the licensed program (Linux only), or 2) "any derivative work under copyright law", which ZFS is not, so the combination is such a "mere aggregation." > Just think about it. The LGPL would make no sense if this wasn't the case. Whether the LGPL makes sense or not is not really a concern of mine, but the LGPL also only applies to "derived works" as well. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35914449 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35914449