2 ms·

Whatever happened to the whole debate around Ubuntu including ZFS modules by default in Ubuntu? At the time it originally got proposed, I feel like I remember b

by saghm 2y ago

Whatever happened to the whole debate around Ubuntu including ZFS modules by default in Ubuntu? At the time it originally got proposed, I feel like I remember basically everyone other than Canonical agreeing that this wasn't allowed by the licenses of Linux and ZFS, but they did it anyways, and from what I can tell, they basically got away with it? Unless I'm remembering it wrong, I'm honestly not surprised that they might just be less worried about licensing in general after that; maybe this is the software licensing equivalent of "too big to fail"?

mustache_kimono 2y ago
> from what I can tell, they basically got away with it? Or they correctly interpreted the law? Few of us care to admit how this "legal consensus" is mostly BS. Lots of evidence to the contrary, but, like politics these days, it sure is an appealing fantasy?
- saghm 2y ago
  I don't pretend to have any legal expertise on the matter. All I know is that I remember reading stuff that made me think there was a consensus that this wasn't allowed by the licenses, and that they did it and I didn't notice any consequences. Maybe it was BS, but I think it's also fair to argue that there's quite a lot of licensing terms in software that haven't been fully established via precedent in the courts yet and instead mostly ends up being followed out of risk aversion rather than anyone being totally 100% sure how a court would rule (which isn't something people can necessarily predict on _any_ given issue, rather than something specific to software licenses). If the common consensus was BS, I actually don't think that detracts from the larger point I was trying to make much; I probably distracted from it too much with my over-enthusiastic wordplay at the end, but my original intent was to convey that Canonical might just intentionally have decided that they aren't concerned with the types of licensing issues that people are discussing here with regards to coreutils. If my theory is correct, it's due to sound legal judgment or intentional non-compliance isn't something I have any strong insight into; I mostly just thought it was worth suggesting that what people here think about it might not really matter all that much because it seems unlikely to me that they'll either be convinced to change their plans or suffer significant negative consequences from going forward with what they've decided, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.
xoa 2y ago
>Whatever happened to the whole debate around Ubuntu including ZFS modules by default in Ubuntu? At the time it originally got proposed, I feel like I remember basically everyone other than Canonical agreeing that this wasn't allowed by the licenses of Linux and ZFS I think your recollection here is pretty colored, or else you were only reading stuff from one particular bubble. My own recollection is that there were very compelling arguments to the contrary, ones that I agreed with. Like, foundational to the concept of civil court cases is "standing" which is almost invariably down to a party suffering damages. Courts aren't a venue (at least in the US in general) for solving debates of abstract philosophy, that's what civil society is about, they're for applying the state's general monopoly on violence in order to rectify harms. Party A claims they were damaged by Party B (statutory, actual or both) in a way that violates the law. The remedy if they win is generally that they are made whole via money as best as possible or, rarely, via actual performance by Party B. But if open source license GPL code is distributed with open source license CDDL code, with full access the source of both available, who is losing money on that? Who is getting damaged? What rights are being lost? Who has standing to sue over it? The idea that it's banned at all isn't tested legally anyway afaik, but more fundamentally if there is no harm then there simply isn't any court case. Say you saghm decided tomorrow that you were really steamed about ZFS being included with Ubuntu and decided to get going on your lawsuit on Monday, when the court asks "how much money did that cost you and what do you want us to do about it" what would your answer be, even putting aside "what's your theory of law on this one". >and from what I can tell, they basically got away with it? Well, that would be expected if there just isn't any case there right?
- Y_Y 2y ago
  Your interpretation doesn't seem compatible with (my understanding of) how IP licensing as a part of contract law works. If I distribute copyrighted music via torrent, the RIAA isn't going to waste time finding out if the recipients were planning to buy CDs otherwise. If you receive software under a license that is too restrictive for you, then there is always the option to pay the rightholder to grant you a more permissive license in exchange for money. (I don't approve of this system, I am merely describing what I see as the status quo.)

by saghm 2y ago

mustache_kimono 2y ago

> from what I can tell, they basically got away with it? Or they correctly interpreted the law? Few of us care to admit how this "legal consensus" is mostly BS. Lots of evidence to the contrary, but, like politics these days, it sure is an appealing fantasy?

saghm 2y ago
I don't pretend to have any legal expertise on the matter. All I know is that I remember reading stuff that made me think there was a consensus that this wasn't allowed by the licenses, and that they did it and I didn't notice any consequences. Maybe it was BS, but I think it's also fair to argue that there's quite a lot of licensing terms in software that haven't been fully established via precedent in the courts yet and instead mostly ends up being followed out of risk aversion rather than anyone being totally 100% sure how a court would rule (which isn't something people can necessarily predict on _any_ given issue, rather than something specific to software licenses). If the common consensus was BS, I actually don't think that detracts from the larger point I was trying to make much; I probably distracted from it too much with my over-enthusiastic wordplay at the end, but my original intent was to convey that Canonical might just intentionally have decided that they aren't concerned with the types of licensing issues that people are discussing here with regards to coreutils. If my theory is correct, it's due to sound legal judgment or intentional non-compliance isn't something I have any strong insight into; I mostly just thought it was worth suggesting that what people here think about it might not really matter all that much because it seems unlikely to me that they'll either be convinced to change their plans or suffer significant negative consequences from going forward with what they've decided, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

xoa 2y ago

>Whatever happened to the whole debate around Ubuntu including ZFS modules by default in Ubuntu? At the time it originally got proposed, I feel like I remember basically everyone other than Canonical agreeing that this wasn't allowed by the licenses of Linux and ZFS I think your recollection here is pretty colored, or else you were only reading stuff from one particular bubble. My own recollection is that there were very compelling arguments to the contrary, ones that I agreed with. Like, foundational to the concept of civil court cases is "standing" which is almost invariably down to a party suffering damages. Courts aren't a venue (at least in the US in general) for solving debates of abstract philosophy, that's what civil society is about, they're for applying the state's general monopoly on violence in order to rectify harms. Party A claims they were damaged by Party B (statutory, actual or both) in a way that violates the law. The remedy if they win is generally that they are made whole via money as best as possible or, rarely, via actual performance by Party B. But if open source license GPL code is distributed with open source license CDDL code, with full access the source of both available, who is losing money on that? Who is getting damaged? What rights are being lost? Who has standing to sue over it? The idea that it's banned at all isn't tested legally anyway afaik, but more fundamentally if there is no harm then there simply isn't any court case. Say you saghm decided tomorrow that you were really steamed about ZFS being included with Ubuntu and decided to get going on your lawsuit on Monday, when the court asks "how much money did that cost you and what do you want us to do about it" what would your answer be, even putting aside "what's your theory of law on this one". >and from what I can tell, they basically got away with it? Well, that would be expected if there just isn't any case there right?

Y_Y 2y ago
Your interpretation doesn't seem compatible with (my understanding of) how IP licensing as a part of contract law works. If I distribute copyrighted music via torrent, the RIAA isn't going to waste time finding out if the recipients were planning to buy CDs otherwise. If you receive software under a license that is too restrictive for you, then there is always the option to pay the rightholder to grant you a more permissive license in exchange for money. (I don't approve of this system, I am merely describing what I see as the status quo.)