4 ms·
I don't think Linux would like to ship a mass of code that size that's not GPLed, even if court cases say CDDL is GPL-compatible.
by rincebrain 3y ago
I don't think Linux would like to ship a mass of code that size that's not GPLed, even if court cases say CDDL is GPL-compatible.
- jonhohle 3y agoIt isn’t compatible because it adds additional restrictions regarding patented code. The CDDL was made to be used in mixed license distributions and only affects individual files, but the GPL taints anything linked (which is why LGPL exists). Since the terms of the CDDL can’t be respected in a GPL’d distribution, I can’t see a way for it to ever be included in the kernel repo. I don’t think there’s any issue with canonical shipping a kmod, but similar to 3ᴿᴰ party binary drivers, it would need to be treated as a different “work”.
- rincebrain 3y agoI'm aware of the surrounding arguments, I promise; my remark was that I doubted Linux would like to ship a large mass of code with any additional encumberments even if it didn't somehow fail the GPL compatible test. (I'm aware that this is an impossible condition barring court precedent that ignores the definition of the constraint.)
- yencabulator 3y agoIt's a little unfair to blame it on GPL. If ZFS was MIT/BSD/etc licensed, it could be brought into the Linux repository just fine. CDDL explicitly doesn't let that happen, by saying "Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License". That only is harsh.
- slikrick 3y agoif the kernel was MIT/BSD/etc licensed ZFS would be allowed in the kernel just fine too. but only one of the licenses is infectious and requires things of the other sources. it's definitely a GPL issue more than a CDDL issue
- yencabulator 3y agoGPL predates CDDL; CDDL authors were well aware of GPL; CDDL authors chose to make the license different from existing commonly-used open source licenses. Ask why...