3 ms·

> Debian maintainers vote to ship ZFSonLinux in Debian I don't believe that's what the linked post is saying. I may be missing additional context that's posted

> Debian maintainers vote to ship ZFSonLinux in Debian I don't believe that's what the linked post is saying. I may be missing additional context that's posted elsewhere, but at least what I read in this thread is: 1) the Debian ftpmasters rejected the binary ZFS module upload; and 2) the Debian ZFS-on-Linux team met at Debconf 14 and agreed on this summary/response, arguing why it should be accepted. But has that response itself been accepted? Where is the mentioned vote? The only other post I see in the linked thread is from Lucas Nussbaum (Debian project leader), which sounds inconclusive, I think that adding an actual question to our legal counsel would help focus their work. ... I'll wait for comments or ACK from ftpmasters before forwarding your mail to SFLC.

ryao 12y ago
You are correct. There is no sign of a vote. That inaccuracy aside, the outline of the general understanding of the licensing situation is a step in the right direction. The email itself suggests that there was tentative agreement over this at DebConf 14, which is promising.
- ferrantim 12y ago
  Sorry for introducing that inaccuracy when I posted the title. I mistakenly interpreted "As agreed at DebConf 14, Debian ZFS on Linux Maintainers have concluded..." as the equivalent of a vote.
- _delirium 12y ago
  My read was that there was agreement at DebConf 14 among the ZFS-on-Linux maintainers specifically, not necessarily that they'd gotten buy-in from the wider Debian community. It's somewhat unclear though.
zurn 12y ago
Also, their legal reasoning (based on EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL) is one that has been repeatedly contested by various people including some Linux authors.
- _delirium 12y ago
  People do dispute that reasoning, but I think this statement is correct that if you don't accept that reasoning, Debian also needs to stop shipping proprietary drivers [1] that depend on the same rationale (Debian currently considers such drivers non-free, but not GPL-violating). [1] e.g. https://packages.debian.org/sid/nvidia-driver https://packages.debian.org/sid/nvidia-driver

ryao 12y ago

You are correct. There is no sign of a vote. That inaccuracy aside, the outline of the general understanding of the licensing situation is a step in the right direction. The email itself suggests that there was tentative agreement over this at DebConf 14, which is promising.

ferrantim 12y ago
Sorry for introducing that inaccuracy when I posted the title. I mistakenly interpreted "As agreed at DebConf 14, Debian ZFS on Linux Maintainers have concluded..." as the equivalent of a vote.
_delirium 12y ago
My read was that there was agreement at DebConf 14 among the ZFS-on-Linux maintainers specifically, not necessarily that they'd gotten buy-in from the wider Debian community. It's somewhat unclear though.

zurn 12y ago

Also, their legal reasoning (based on EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL) is one that has been repeatedly contested by various people including some Linux authors.

_delirium 12y ago
People do dispute that reasoning, but I think this statement is correct that if you don't accept that reasoning, Debian also needs to stop shipping proprietary drivers [1] that depend on the same rationale (Debian currently considers such drivers non-free, but not GPL-violating). [1] e.g. https://packages.debian.org/sid/nvidia-driver https://packages.debian.org/sid/nvidia-driver