8 ms·

As nice as the technology is as long as there's the potential of a Damoclean license issue I'll always feel hesitant around ZFS. (Hey looks like it's a sore sp

As nice as the technology is as long as there's the potential of a Damoclean license issue I'll always feel hesitant around ZFS. (Hey looks like it's a sore spot!)

judge2020 3y ago
Even in such an event, I don’t see how it would affect end users in an extreme way. OpenZFS doesn’t call home to make sure it’s still legal to use, so worst that could happen is that they are forced to stop distribution and you need to stay on old software until you can move to another storage system.
- NavinF 3y ago
  Not to mention Ubuntu included ZFS by default since 2016. I still remember all the doomsday predictions people made back then. People on HN and proggit kinda suck at legal
- arjvik 3y ago
  Playing devil's advocate here, but what if Oracle decides to sue you, a company with only a few thousands in revenue, for their multi-million dollar licensing fee? I agree this is unlikely, but so is someone being born with as much litigiousness as Larry Ellison.
  - TheDong 3y ago
    This is built on a misunderstanding of what the ZFS licensing issue is. ZFS is licensed under the CDDL [0], which is a copyleft license that grants you full rights to use the ZFS source code for basically anything, providing that any derivative works incorporating its source code are also are under the CDDL. There is no "licensing fee" that you can pay Oracle related to this. Linux is licensed under the GPL, which just like the CDDL, is a copyleft license which requires derivative works to be distributed under the GPL. The conflict here is that both require the entire derived work to be distributed under CDDL/GPL, but obviously only one license can be picked.... even though realistically, GPL and CDDL are quite similar licenses. The additional fact that is useful to know is that zfs.ko, the zfs kernel module, is distributed under the CDDL by ubuntu, and any other distro distributing it that I know of. So, with that knowledge, who can sue who and why? 1. The people that can be sued are people distributing compiled zfs binaries (the 'zfs.ko' kernel binary). In practice, this means canonical, and anyone else who distributes disk images using ZFS (such as snapshotted EC2 AMIs) 2. The people who can sue are the holders of the Linux GPL license, and they can do so by claiming zfs.ko violates their copyright by being a derived work of the linux kernel, but being distributed under the CDDL rather than the GPL. So, first of all, the vast majority of companies using ZFS aren't also distributing binary distributions containing zfs.ko and the linux kernel together, therefore this whole thing is moot. Realistically, most companies using ZFS only have the risk of _canonical_ being sued, and that breaking their filesystem, not them running into legal issues themselves. And second, it would require a holder of Linux copyright to file suit, and realistically, no court could find significant damages here. Canonical also has lawyers that claim 2 wouldn't legally follow, that 'zfs.ko' is not in fact a derived work of the linux kernel. There's differing opinions there, but pretty much everyone agrees that the people who could sue if this interpretation is wrong is the holders of Linux copyright, not oracle. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib...
    - arjvik 3y ago
      I see, thanks for educating me on this with such an in-depth reply! I simply saw "licensing issue" and "Oracle" together and assumed the standard Oracle licensing worry applied.
    - jclulow 3y ago
      Note that unlike the GPL, the CDDL is file-based. It doesn't require your entire body of software to be CDDL, it just requires that you make modifications to CDDL-licenced files available under the CDDL.
    - jakobson14 3y ago
      You have one crucial fact wrong: The CDDL is actually a weak per-file copyleft. The CDDL is totally ok with the rest of the linux kernel staying GPLv2. The GPL is allergic to any non-GPL (eg. ZFS) code being distributed with the kernel source.
      - TheDong 3y ago
        Sure, but I don't think that's crucial here. Does it change any of the other information? I admit I shouldn't have written "both require the entire derived work to be distributed under CDDL/GPL", and instead should have written "both may require, depending on a court's interpretation, the zfs kernel module to be distributed under CDDL or GPL respectively". I think the rest of the comment stands though, right?
        jakobson14 3y ago
        > "both may require, depending on a court's interpretation, the zfs kernel module to be distributed under CDDL or GPL respectively". That's wrong, and misses fundamental information about the CDDL. First, the CDDL gives absolutely no fucks how you licence a resulting binary. It only cares about the specific covered source files, and doesn't care what you bundle them with. So nobody would ever argue that the module should be licenced as CDDL. On the flip side, you'd have a really hard time arguing that the module should be licensed as GPL.* Sure, there's maybe a GPL wrapper, but lots of modules are non-GPL even when they might feature such a wrapper. ie. nvidia. You also can't argue ZFS is a derived work of the kernel, which is really the crux of the issue. ZFS was first written on solaris, developed for several years on freeBSD, and remains neutral across 3-5 different supported OSs. There's nothing to indicate the GPL should have more claim over ZFS than the wrapper. The one and only place you'll ever run into trouble is if you start trying to distribute ZFS *source code* in the kernel source tree, as a fully integrated part of the kernel. (EDIT: or compiled together in a single kernel binary, from said combined source) The CDDL doesn't care about the mixing but the GPL does. Literally everyone agrees this is a bad idea and nobody does it. *Let's ignore for a moment for the moment that you *couldn't* since the GPL requires complete corresponding source code and you can't relicence the CDDL source code files.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    On what grounds? ZFS has an open-source license. The only semi-open question related to the topic is packaging it together with another, different open-source license that is viral and mandates more things (GPL). That part is not being “violated” by an enduser, but the distro maintainer.
    - jakobson14 3y ago
      Oracle's hands are tied in so far as they can't revoke the CDDL licence that Sun provided. They could sue you as a kernel contributor, but only if you do something to violate the GPL. The only thing that would clearly violate the GPL, in the era of proprietary nvidia blobs, is if you tried to ship the ZFS source code in-tree. Everybody agrees that's a bad idea, nobody does it. ZFS instead is shipped as a separate kernel module.
wkat4242 3y ago
It's not really an issue with ZFS itself. It's a great filesystem. GPL isn't the only way to do open source. It's the way Linux has chosen and that has pros and cons. Not integrating so well with other open source licenses is one of the cons.
- tylercrompton 3y ago
  > Not integrating so well with other open source licenses is one of the cons. That depends on what you want. If you want a license that will play well with closed source software, then yeah, it's a downside. But the GPL family comes from the perspective of a developer who wants to retain their rights while respecting others' desire for the same. If you care about your rights, then this is an upside.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    CDDL (ZFS’s license) is also like that, the problem is exactly the two “strong” copyleft licenses.
    - jakobson14 3y ago
      https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CDDL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CDDL >"It has a weak per-file copyleft (like version 1 of the Mozilla Public License)" The CDDL isn't a strong copyleft licence. It doesn't give a shit what larger project you include the code into, and it doesn't give a shit how you licence the resulting binary. It's considerably more permissive than the GPL. The conflict is entirely on the GPL side.
ggm 3y ago
This is only going to get a shedload of "you do you" responses. BSD licencing is quite content to use ZFS, its pretty much ubiquitous now in widescale deployment and the source would be impossible to re-lock. Worst case is fork. I very much regret the fragmentation of FS design, it has many mothers. "there can only be one" was never going to work, but we seem to have perhaps 4-5 more than we really need. ZFS manages to wrap up a number of behaviours cohesively with good version-dependent signalling so it should always be possible to know you're risking a non-reversible change to your flags. And, it keeps improving. But, counter "it keeps improving" so do all the other current, maintained, developed FS and if somebody tells me they prefer to use Hammer, or one of the Linux FS models with a discrete volume-management and encryption layer, I don't think thats necessarily wrong. Mainly I regret Apple walking away. That was about Oracle behaviour. It wasn't helpful. A lot of Apple's FS design ideas persist. I never got resource/data forks, it only ever appeared on my radar as .files in the UNIX AUFS backend model of them. Obviously inside Apples code, it was dealt with somehow. It felt like the wrong lessons about meta data had been learned. Maybe an Ex-VMS person went to Apple? Also Apple has a rather "yea maybe or no, dunno" view about case-independent or case-dependent naming. Time machine is good. Feels like it should fit ZFS well. Oh well.
- chaxor 3y ago
  I wish zfs had a 'tag' type of feature like Apple style fs. I have thought about making an object store to get some of the metadata on the fs level, rather than having to make some cobbles together solution of an SQLite DB of metadata with the files or something, but many of the object store solutions seem to be for fairly large files, rather than a few thousand pictures of family and such. Unsure what a good solution using zfs would be.
  - adrian_b 3y ago
    I am not sure what kind of "tag" you mean, but in any modern file system which supports extended file attributes you can attach arbitrary metadata to any file. You just have to define whatever kind of tags you want and choose names for the xattrs in which to store them and then you should use them in your scripts or applications. I am using all the time xattrs for things like file checksums and content classification, on XFS and on FreeBSD UFS, but almost all modern file systems support xattrs, except Linux tmpfs (which has only a partial support that is useless for those who use custom xattrs, so a file with xattrs cannot be copied to /tmp if tmpfs is used).
rodgerd 3y ago
Do you refuse to use NVidia cards for the same reason?
- dontupvoteme 3y ago
  No choice on that front.
  - NavinF 3y ago
    New drivers are MIT/GPL2 dual-licensed: https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules
    - mrweasel 3y ago
      Doesn't that still require the closed source user space driver to function? I'd love to be wrong on that one.
      - vetinari 3y ago
        In the short-term yes, in the long term the user space driver would also get open (or replaced with nouveau, since it will be on equal footing with the closed one, when communicating with kernel; just like the open vs closed amd drivers). However, what will be left is a blob, that runs on the dedicated core on the GPU. The stuff that Nvidia doesn't want to open is moved there, and that's why the open kernel driver works only on Turing and newer.
        mrweasel 3y ago
        > However, what will be left is a blob, that runs on the dedicated core on the GPU But that basically firmware, right? So not all that different from the firmware loaded by a NIC?
        vetinari 3y ago
lmm 3y ago
You might want to consider using FreeBSD then, where there is no licensing issue. I've found it has all the stuff I liked about Linux, and less of the stuff I dislike.
- seized 3y ago
  There is also Illumos/OpenIndiana/OmniOS, basically continuations of OpenSolaris. I have used OpenIndiana for many years and it's been dead reliable and stable. There's quite a few "quality of life" differences like boot environments (boot into a pre upgraded OS state, even years old), built in SMB server with NFS v4 style ACLs, dtrace, built in snapshot scheduling and management, and Napp-It is an available web UI for management a la FreeNAS/TrueNAS. It has a few differences, service management is quite different from other things, but overall very underrated as an OS I think.
  - unethical_ban 3y ago
    I haven't looked at those distributions in years. I thought they were niche, container host operating systems and not general purpose.. I guess it need to do my research.
    - NavinF 3y ago
      That's because they are niche container host operating systems. Without support for modern hardware like GPUs, it makes no sense to run them on bare metal
      - seized 3y ago
        Sure it does, they are great storage OSs. A NAS doesnt need GPUs.
kaba0 3y ago
The license issue in the very worst case (but even that is quite questionable and I would say that Linus is a bit paranoid here) could only be a problem for a distro that ships it by default, you as the end user can freely use both linux and ZFS, as well as their combination.
tomxor 3y ago
I was concerned about this aspect initially, but ZoL has been going for many years now. At this point even Debian (the most purist in terms of GPL considerations) includes ZoL in it's official repository. It doesn't distribute binaries, apt just builds the kernel module automatically. Frankly, if even Debian can use it, it's a non-issue.
unethical_ban 3y ago
ZFS on Linux, and even Ubuntu distributing the binary form in their base OS, has been going on for years. I think you would be a huge event and very unlikely to occur if Oracle tried to pull some licensing bullshit. As someone ignorant to file system development, I would almost expect something more likely to be BTRFS getting sued for copying a feature of ZFS or something like that.
- jakobson14 3y ago
  There's really no case to be made from the CDDL side. It's a weak per-file copyleft. If anyone (Oracle or Linus Torvalds) launches a ZFS-related lawsuit, it'll be as an author of GPLv2 kernel code. For the time being the solution has been to ship ZFS separate from the kernel, as any module with a non-GPL licence typically does. The biggest hurdle to ZFS isn't legal, but technical. The various teams working on ZFS has so far been able to keep up with kernel churn and symbols (eg FPU ones) being made GPL-only. That said, the kernel devs have made it clear that they don't care if you're open source or proprietary, they will make changes and mark new symbols GPL-only to fuck with you regardless.

As nice as the technology is as long as there's the potential of a Damoclean license issue I'll always feel hesitant around ZFS. (Hey looks like it's a sore spot!)

judge2020 3y ago

Even in such an event, I don’t see how it would affect end users in an extreme way. OpenZFS doesn’t call home to make sure it’s still legal to use, so worst that could happen is that they are forced to stop distribution and you need to stay on old software until you can move to another storage system.

NavinF 3y ago
Not to mention Ubuntu included ZFS by default since 2016. I still remember all the doomsday predictions people made back then. People on HN and proggit kinda suck at legal
arjvik 3y ago
Playing devil's advocate here, but what if Oracle decides to sue you, a company with only a few thousands in revenue, for their multi-million dollar licensing fee? I agree this is unlikely, but so is someone being born with as much litigiousness as Larry Ellison.
- TheDong 3y ago
  This is built on a misunderstanding of what the ZFS licensing issue is. ZFS is licensed under the CDDL [0], which is a copyleft license that grants you full rights to use the ZFS source code for basically anything, providing that any derivative works incorporating its source code are also are under the CDDL. There is no "licensing fee" that you can pay Oracle related to this. Linux is licensed under the GPL, which just like the CDDL, is a copyleft license which requires derivative works to be distributed under the GPL. The conflict here is that both require the entire derived work to be distributed under CDDL/GPL, but obviously only one license can be picked.... even though realistically, GPL and CDDL are quite similar licenses. The additional fact that is useful to know is that zfs.ko, the zfs kernel module, is distributed under the CDDL by ubuntu, and any other distro distributing it that I know of. So, with that knowledge, who can sue who and why? 1. The people that can be sued are people distributing compiled zfs binaries (the 'zfs.ko' kernel binary). In practice, this means canonical, and anyone else who distributes disk images using ZFS (such as snapshotted EC2 AMIs) 2. The people who can sue are the holders of the Linux GPL license, and they can do so by claiming zfs.ko violates their copyright by being a derived work of the linux kernel, but being distributed under the CDDL rather than the GPL. So, first of all, the vast majority of companies using ZFS aren't also distributing binary distributions containing zfs.ko and the linux kernel together, therefore this whole thing is moot. Realistically, most companies using ZFS only have the risk of _canonical_ being sued, and that breaking their filesystem, not them running into legal issues themselves. And second, it would require a holder of Linux copyright to file suit, and realistically, no court could find significant damages here. Canonical also has lawyers that claim 2 wouldn't legally follow, that 'zfs.ko' is not in fact a derived work of the linux kernel. There's differing opinions there, but pretty much everyone agrees that the people who could sue if this interpretation is wrong is the holders of Linux copyright, not oracle. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib...
  - arjvik 3y ago
    I see, thanks for educating me on this with such an in-depth reply! I simply saw "licensing issue" and "Oracle" together and assumed the standard Oracle licensing worry applied.
  - jclulow 3y ago
    Note that unlike the GPL, the CDDL is file-based. It doesn't require your entire body of software to be CDDL, it just requires that you make modifications to CDDL-licenced files available under the CDDL.
  - jakobson14 3y ago
    You have one crucial fact wrong: The CDDL is actually a weak per-file copyleft. The CDDL is totally ok with the rest of the linux kernel staying GPLv2. The GPL is allergic to any non-GPL (eg. ZFS) code being distributed with the kernel source.
    - TheDong 3y ago
      Sure, but I don't think that's crucial here. Does it change any of the other information? I admit I shouldn't have written "both require the entire derived work to be distributed under CDDL/GPL", and instead should have written "both may require, depending on a court's interpretation, the zfs kernel module to be distributed under CDDL or GPL respectively". I think the rest of the comment stands though, right?
      - jakobson14 3y ago
        > "both may require, depending on a court's interpretation, the zfs kernel module to be distributed under CDDL or GPL respectively". That's wrong, and misses fundamental information about the CDDL. First, the CDDL gives absolutely no fucks how you licence a resulting binary. It only cares about the specific covered source files, and doesn't care what you bundle them with. So nobody would ever argue that the module should be licenced as CDDL. On the flip side, you'd have a really hard time arguing that the module should be licensed as GPL.* Sure, there's maybe a GPL wrapper, but lots of modules are non-GPL even when they might feature such a wrapper. ie. nvidia. You also can't argue ZFS is a derived work of the kernel, which is really the crux of the issue. ZFS was first written on solaris, developed for several years on freeBSD, and remains neutral across 3-5 different supported OSs. There's nothing to indicate the GPL should have more claim over ZFS than the wrapper. The one and only place you'll ever run into trouble is if you start trying to distribute ZFS *source code* in the kernel source tree, as a fully integrated part of the kernel. (EDIT: or compiled together in a single kernel binary, from said combined source) The CDDL doesn't care about the mixing but the GPL does. Literally everyone agrees this is a bad idea and nobody does it. *Let's ignore for a moment for the moment that you *couldn't* since the GPL requires complete corresponding source code and you can't relicence the CDDL source code files.
- kaba0 3y ago
  On what grounds? ZFS has an open-source license. The only semi-open question related to the topic is packaging it together with another, different open-source license that is viral and mandates more things (GPL). That part is not being “violated” by an enduser, but the distro maintainer.
  - jakobson14 3y ago
    Oracle's hands are tied in so far as they can't revoke the CDDL licence that Sun provided. They could sue you as a kernel contributor, but only if you do something to violate the GPL. The only thing that would clearly violate the GPL, in the era of proprietary nvidia blobs, is if you tried to ship the ZFS source code in-tree. Everybody agrees that's a bad idea, nobody does it. ZFS instead is shipped as a separate kernel module.

wkat4242 3y ago

It's not really an issue with ZFS itself. It's a great filesystem. GPL isn't the only way to do open source. It's the way Linux has chosen and that has pros and cons. Not integrating so well with other open source licenses is one of the cons.

tylercrompton 3y ago
> Not integrating so well with other open source licenses is one of the cons. That depends on what you want. If you want a license that will play well with closed source software, then yeah, it's a downside. But the GPL family comes from the perspective of a developer who wants to retain their rights while respecting others' desire for the same. If you care about your rights, then this is an upside.
- kaba0 3y ago
  CDDL (ZFS’s license) is also like that, the problem is exactly the two “strong” copyleft licenses.
  - jakobson14 3y ago
    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CDDL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CDDL >"It has a weak per-file copyleft (like version 1 of the Mozilla Public License)" The CDDL isn't a strong copyleft licence. It doesn't give a shit what larger project you include the code into, and it doesn't give a shit how you licence the resulting binary. It's considerably more permissive than the GPL. The conflict is entirely on the GPL side.

ggm 3y ago

This is only going to get a shedload of "you do you" responses. BSD licencing is quite content to use ZFS, its pretty much ubiquitous now in widescale deployment and the source would be impossible to re-lock. Worst case is fork. I very much regret the fragmentation of FS design, it has many mothers. "there can only be one" was never going to work, but we seem to have perhaps 4-5 more than we really need. ZFS manages to wrap up a number of behaviours cohesively with good version-dependent signalling so it should always be possible to know you're risking a non-reversible change to your flags. And, it keeps improving. But, counter "it keeps improving" so do all the other current, maintained, developed FS and if somebody tells me they prefer to use Hammer, or one of the Linux FS models with a discrete volume-management and encryption layer, I don't think thats necessarily wrong. Mainly I regret Apple walking away. That was about Oracle behaviour. It wasn't helpful. A lot of Apple's FS design ideas persist. I never got resource/data forks, it only ever appeared on my radar as .files in the UNIX AUFS backend model of them. Obviously inside Apples code, it was dealt with somehow. It felt like the wrong lessons about meta data had been learned. Maybe an Ex-VMS person went to Apple? Also Apple has a rather "yea maybe or no, dunno" view about case-independent or case-dependent naming. Time machine is good. Feels like it should fit ZFS well. Oh well.

chaxor 3y ago
I wish zfs had a 'tag' type of feature like Apple style fs. I have thought about making an object store to get some of the metadata on the fs level, rather than having to make some cobbles together solution of an SQLite DB of metadata with the files or something, but many of the object store solutions seem to be for fairly large files, rather than a few thousand pictures of family and such. Unsure what a good solution using zfs would be.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  I am not sure what kind of "tag" you mean, but in any modern file system which supports extended file attributes you can attach arbitrary metadata to any file. You just have to define whatever kind of tags you want and choose names for the xattrs in which to store them and then you should use them in your scripts or applications. I am using all the time xattrs for things like file checksums and content classification, on XFS and on FreeBSD UFS, but almost all modern file systems support xattrs, except Linux tmpfs (which has only a partial support that is useless for those who use custom xattrs, so a file with xattrs cannot be copied to /tmp if tmpfs is used).

rodgerd 3y ago

Do you refuse to use NVidia cards for the same reason?

dontupvoteme 3y ago
No choice on that front.
- NavinF 3y ago
  New drivers are MIT/GPL2 dual-licensed: https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    Doesn't that still require the closed source user space driver to function? I'd love to be wrong on that one.
    - vetinari 3y ago
      In the short-term yes, in the long term the user space driver would also get open (or replaced with nouveau, since it will be on equal footing with the closed one, when communicating with kernel; just like the open vs closed amd drivers). However, what will be left is a blob, that runs on the dedicated core on the GPU. The stuff that Nvidia doesn't want to open is moved there, and that's why the open kernel driver works only on Turing and newer.
      - mrweasel 3y ago
        > However, what will be left is a blob, that runs on the dedicated core on the GPU But that basically firmware, right? So not all that different from the firmware loaded by a NIC?
        vetinari 3y ago

lmm 3y ago

You might want to consider using FreeBSD then, where there is no licensing issue. I've found it has all the stuff I liked about Linux, and less of the stuff I dislike.

seized 3y ago
There is also Illumos/OpenIndiana/OmniOS, basically continuations of OpenSolaris. I have used OpenIndiana for many years and it's been dead reliable and stable. There's quite a few "quality of life" differences like boot environments (boot into a pre upgraded OS state, even years old), built in SMB server with NFS v4 style ACLs, dtrace, built in snapshot scheduling and management, and Napp-It is an available web UI for management a la FreeNAS/TrueNAS. It has a few differences, service management is quite different from other things, but overall very underrated as an OS I think.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  I haven't looked at those distributions in years. I thought they were niche, container host operating systems and not general purpose.. I guess it need to do my research.
  - NavinF 3y ago
    That's because they are niche container host operating systems. Without support for modern hardware like GPUs, it makes no sense to run them on bare metal
    - seized 3y ago
      Sure it does, they are great storage OSs. A NAS doesnt need GPUs.

kaba0 3y ago

The license issue in the very worst case (but even that is quite questionable and I would say that Linus is a bit paranoid here) could only be a problem for a distro that ships it by default, you as the end user can freely use both linux and ZFS, as well as their combination.

tomxor 3y ago

I was concerned about this aspect initially, but ZoL has been going for many years now. At this point even Debian (the most purist in terms of GPL considerations) includes ZoL in it's official repository. It doesn't distribute binaries, apt just builds the kernel module automatically. Frankly, if even Debian can use it, it's a non-issue.

unethical_ban 3y ago

ZFS on Linux, and even Ubuntu distributing the binary form in their base OS, has been going on for years. I think you would be a huge event and very unlikely to occur if Oracle tried to pull some licensing bullshit. As someone ignorant to file system development, I would almost expect something more likely to be BTRFS getting sued for copying a feature of ZFS or something like that.

jakobson14 3y ago
There's really no case to be made from the CDDL side. It's a weak per-file copyleft. If anyone (Oracle or Linus Torvalds) launches a ZFS-related lawsuit, it'll be as an author of GPLv2 kernel code. For the time being the solution has been to ship ZFS separate from the kernel, as any module with a non-GPL licence typically does. The biggest hurdle to ZFS isn't legal, but technical. The various teams working on ZFS has so far been able to keep up with kernel churn and symbols (eg FPU ones) being made GPL-only. That said, the kernel devs have made it clear that they don't care if you're open source or proprietary, they will make changes and mark new symbols GPL-only to fuck with you regardless.