back to article Canonical accused of violating GPL with ZFS-in-Ubuntu 16.04 plan

The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) thinks Canonical, the curator of Ubuntu, has breached the Gnu General Public Licence (GPL). As the Conservancy explains, Canonical recently announced that Ubuntu 16.04 will “make OpenZFS available on every Ubuntu system. Canonical reckons that adding OpenZFS represents “one of the most …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well!

    {Looking at array}{Looking at server} Okaaaayyyy. I was thinking of trying 16.04 for ZFS.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Well!

      Just use FreeBSD.

      1. Preston Munchensonton

        Re: Well!

        Just use FreeBSD.

        Or just download and compile ZFS for yourself now.

        http://zfsonlinux.org/

        My Ubuntu 14.04 fileserver runs just fine with it.

  2. HCV

    "This appears to be Sun's fault, and now Oracle's fault, because they used a derivative of a well-recognized public license, the MPL, a clear violation of the 'must be literally blessed by a man who appears in public wearing a disk platter on his head under the alter ego of "St. IGNUtius"' doctrine."

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @HCV - I don't quite get your point

      Sun devised this license on purpose to be as free as possible while remaining incompatible with GPL and nobody said they didn't have the right to do that. What SFC tries to do here is to prevent a legal confrontation. I hope you agree with me that Canonical is naive to think they can commit this violation and get away with it. Oracle's lawyers will tear them into pieces.

      1. RIBrsiq

        Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

        "Canonical is naïve to think they can commit this violation and get away with it. Oracle's lawyers will tear them into pieces".

        This.

        I don't think it would matter even if they win in the end because Oracle have the resources to bleed them dry in the process.

        While it's been a while since I used Ubuntu directly, I do use distros derived from theirs. And, anyway, diversity is a good thing to maintain regardless. So I would very much not like to see them buried under a huge pile of legalese.

      2. DainB Bronze badge

        Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

        To be honest if Oracle seen any value in ZFS on Linux they would not have any issues include it to UEK. The fact that they recommend to use btrfs instead says a lot.

      3. bazza Silver badge

        Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

        I hope you agree with me that Canonical is naive to think they can commit this violation and get away with it. Oracle's lawyers will tear them into pieces.

        Nope, you've got the wrong end of the stick entirely. Oracle don't and won't give a damn. They didn't when FreeBSD incorporated ZFS, and they won't here.

        No, it's the GPListas and the kernel devs who may get cross, but Canonical's lawyers think that they have no reason to do so. The trouble lies partly in the fact that GPL2 has not really been tested conclusively in a court case in this area.

        Anyway the whole thing is nuts, and it's only the foamy mouthed zealots who care. ZFS is a fine bit of code that everyone wants to use, and it is open source.

        The Linux crowd's normal response to this sort of problem is to reproduce the software; they did this with DTRACE, creating FTRACE. However they have failed to reproduce ZFS satisfactorily. The ongoing lack of ZFS or a decent reproduction of it in Linux is making Linux look bad.

        I think Canonical are being quite brave and are trying to move Linux on for the benefit of all. We should applaud that. Incorporating ZFS will not harm anyone or make any existing or future code more or less open. There's loads of people who are compiling their own ZFS.ko anyway, and obstructing Canonical would be peevishness itself.

        Personally I think that the clauses in GPL2 that force GPL2 onto derivative works have become a big obstacle to progress. If they were updated to permit use of other acceptable open source licenses too then there'd be no real problems. The GPL2 is just words, not a sacrosanct document that mere mortals cannot change.

        The same goes for any other restrictive document such as the US constitution and magna carta, both of which have been amended and or partly repealed. Good grief, if even US politicians can occasionally agree on amending the constitution, how bad does that make the GPListas look?

        1. Tom7

          Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

          Spot on. The problem is that the Linux kernel folks view compiling a kernel module as "creating a derivative work" of the Linux kernel. It is a fairly fine line - the GNU folks have always regarded linking a library into a piece of software as creating a derivative work of that library and I believe have won this point in court, though I can't point to the case off the top of my head. This is why there is also the LGPL, which allows creating this sort of derivative work without forcing the (L)GPL onto the derivative.

          The kernel has no such exception for linking, so the question becomes, when does loading a kernel module cross the line into linking a dynamic library? There are arguments both ways here.

          1. Dr. Mouse

            Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

            when does loading a kernel module cross the line into linking a dynamic library?

            I find the logic of the SFC questionable here.

            There are many binary modules used on a typical desktop Linux system. Graphics card drivers from the manufacturer are almost always binary and non-free. I would love to know what the difference between a distribution supplying Nvidia and AMD graphics drivers and them supplying the ZFS kernel modules are...

          2. Warm Braw

            Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

            creating a derivative work

            This is a bit of a mire. There's some rather elderly discussion here, but I'm pretty sure the linking issue (or at least, the dynamic linking issue) remains moot.The only cases I can quickly find reference to where there has been a determination are the more flagrant ones.

            The first so-called test case of the GP fizzled out. Interestingly, Rob Landley, one of the BusyBox developers later claimed that the court cases had made BusyBox too dangerous to use, rather defeating the object of open source software and has created ToyBox under a more permissive licence.

            I suspect that the dynamic linking reach of the GPL could have been defeated by the following logic.

            1/ Define an abstract API that provides the necessary additional functions for your software.

            2/ Distribute your software on condition that the recipient provides a library to match the API.

            However, now that APIs have been determined to be copyright (in the Android case), it would be interesting to see the SFLC lining up behind Oracle so close that particular loophole.

            Of course, GPLv3 is more proscriptive about what it considers a derivative work. However, the licence doesn't really get to determine what a derivative work is - that's defined by copyright law - so exactly how much of it really applies remains to be seen.

            And that's really the problem with the GPL - it may be well intentioned, but it's the same impenetrable and potentially unenforceable guff as you found in any click-through or shrink-wrap licence from a commercial company. It's a bunch of people try to protect what they see as their own interests -and just like "for your own comfort and safety", pretending it's in your interests too.

            Of course, people have the right to licence their software as they please, but if it becomes mired in legal uncertainty it's ultimately self-defeating.

        2. HmmmYes

          Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

          I think SFC are wrong here. Linux is GPLv2 rather than GPLv3 (isnt it?)

          The ZFS port to BSD was easy Solaris and BSD share the same low-level disk interface.

          Linux is different. I've not looked at the Linux port - I avoid looking at Linux kernel code, it hurts my eyes - but I would guess it would need an adaption layer to run ZFS - assuming they've lifted the ZFS code 'asis' and are adapting the Linux low-level disk interface to allow ZFS to run.

          Like all filesystems, the ZFS code ought to be kept separate from the main Linux kernel - which is pretty small anyways.

          As the ZFS module is built as a kernel module ought to put a license firewall between it and the kernel.

        3. HmmmYes

          Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

          Oh, I agree on DTRACE.

          Linux attempts have been woeful.

        4. John Sanders

          Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

          """GPL2 that force GPL2 onto derivative works have become a big obstacle to progress."""

          Progress to whom? I think Linux is doing more than OK

          """The same goes for any other restrictive document such as the US constitution and magna carta"""

          Not the same by a long shot, and careful what you wish for introducing changes here.

          The IT industry is a legal minefield of moronic proportions, this is so because most people refuse to use the appendage known as head for anything else than carry it around, and because there are plenty of sharks willing to kidnap the industry for their benefit.

          The GPL is designed with a goal, prevent the code from being made closed source or dependent on closed source.

          Most tech companies idea of what the IT industry should be have more to do with seeing themselves as the "U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men" corporation, than players in a free market engaging competition.

          The GPL as it is right now has proven to stop this from happening, provides a level-playing field and benefited everybody that plays by its rules. If you do not like the rules, go write your own kernel, with licenses and casinos and... (futurama reference)

          Having said that, I want ZFS, so perhaps making a petition to Oracle could be an idea, after all they could ship it with their Oracle Linux too.

          1. bazza Silver badge

            Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

            Not the same by a long shot, and careful what you wish for introducing changes here.

            You miss the point. Both the US constitution and Magna Carta have already been partially or extensively modified by politicians. Documents that are far more significant to humanity than a poxy software license have, by common agreement, been modified. They are sacrosanct, but not unmodifiable.

            So considering GPL to be unmodifiable is the height of conceit. Even politicians have managed to get their shit together more often than software devs. That's a pretty poor situation for the industry.

            1. Jonathan Richards 1

              Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

              > considering GPL to be unmodifiable is the height of conceit

              I don't think anyone has said that they consider that, have they? Of course the GPL is modifiable: we're currently on Version 3, already. What you *can't* do is go back and retro-actively modify Version 2. Re-licensing the kernel under a later version would require the assent of all the kernel contributors who hold a copyright. I'm unaware that there's an appetite to undertake that task.

        5. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: bazza Re: @HCV - I don't quite get your point

          ".....and it's only the foamy mouthed zealots who care......" Er. no. It's the people wanting to use Ubuntu-based distros for commercial products that will care, as it opens them up to Oracle later coming along and either demanding a license fee for every instance, or - if they are a competitor to an Oracle product - being bankrupted in court by Oracle's legal arm. That is what Oracle tried with NetApp. Oracle certainly doesn't care about FreeBSD because it is not used in a commercial manner but by hobbyists. Personally, I don't see a problem if hobbyists want to download and install ZFS separately from a distro, but bundling it with the distro is leaving users open to potential liability issues. Myself, I would flatly refuse to use ZFS anyway because I consider it a crap product even before you get round to the licensing issue.

          The good news is that all this does is make Red Hat an even better choice for server Linux.

          1. bazza Silver badge

            Re: bazza @HCV - I don't quite get your point

            Er. no. It's the people wanting to use Ubuntu-based distros for commercial products that will care, as it opens them up to Oracle later coming along and either demanding a license fee for every instance, or - if they are a competitor to an Oracle product - being bankrupted in court by Oracle's legal arm.

            Sigh. Then that would be a matter for them to worry about, not a matter for Canonical and certainly not the FSF, etc. The rest of us mere mortals would simply like to be able to use a modern fs based on open source code in a convenient way without having to mess around with making one's own kernel modules (trivial though that may be).

            And as others have pointed out here are plenty of distributions that are pushing out the closed source Nvidia drivers, and no one is suing anyone about that. The people getting hot under the collar about the addition of the open source ZFS are being mightily inconsistent.

            Do you prefer Btrfs?

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: bazza @HCV - I don't quite get your point

              "....Then that would be a matter for them to worry about, not a matter for Canonical and certainly not the FSF...." Yes it would, seeing as the role of the FSF is to keep "Linux" free of legal/licensing/patent entrapments. If Oracle really had no interest in pursuing future licensing then they would have offered ZFS under the GPL years ago, but they have stayed with Sun's deliberately restrictive licensing instead. After seeing how Sun used the "WAFL-is-ZFS" argument to attack NetApp patents in court, anyone thinking Larry Ellison is just keeping ZFS under the CDDL because he is too lazy to swap it over to GPL is forgetting that Larry's one interest in buying Sun was to monetise as much of the corpse as he could.

              "....And as others have pointed out here are plenty of distributions that are pushing out the closed source Nvidia drivers....." Which is totally different as nVidia has firstly stated it has no intent to pursue any licensing money, whereas Larry has, it was why he bought Sun. And secondly because nVidia still makes money off the consumer hardware sales of graphics cards that get put in consumer/hobbyist Linux systems, which is nVidia's prime market, whereas Larry makes no money off any commercial Linux system sales, indeed they are competitive to his own server and storage products. Indeed, nVidia needs to encourage as many consumer buyers as possible, both in Linux and Windows markets, as it faces the threat of Intel and AMD both having embedded graphics in their CPUs with enough capability for the majority of desktop users.

              ".....The people getting hot under the collar about the addition of the open source ZFS are being mightily inconsistent....." Maybe then you need to understand the difference between a commercial company and a specialist consumer company before you consider the views of others. Personally, as I stated before, if you want to load your consumer/hobbyist system with ZFS then it is your right, just do try and accept that those of us that use Linux in business are not going to be so happy at the idea of seeing a core distro encumbered with a patent timebomb.

              ".....Do you prefer Btrfs?" Yes, which is ironic considering it is an Oracle-developed product licensed under the GPL.

          2. walterp

            Re: bazza @HCV - I don't quite get your point

            FreeBSD is used in a commercial manner. It powers the NetFlix cache network. It is the basis of the Islion platform.

            From the point of view of some commercial FreeBSD groups, Linux is a hobbyist OS gone pro and FreeBSD is a commercial grade/quality OS. I agree with them.

            From a historical point of view, FreeBSD came from the commercial versions of Unix through the rework done by Berkeley (the BSD in the name). Linux was written by college student and spread out among the the hobbyist on the Internet. It was years later that Linux became commercial. Remember, SCO sued IBM at the turn of century claiming that it took something like IBM to make the hobbyist OS known as Linux into the commercial/professional OS that Linux has become.

            1. Vic

              Re: bazza @HCV - I don't quite get your point

              Remember, SCO sued IBM at the turn of century claiming that it took something like IBM to make the hobbyist OS known as Linux into the commercial/professional OS that Linux has become.

              You're seriously trying to prove a point by referencing what SCO said?

              ::boggle::

              Vic.

  3. lamont

    hopefully they do file a lawsuit and this stupid argument gets settled.

  4. fnj
    Thumb Down

    Bugger these obstructionist troublemakers

    SFC's charge is brain-dead stupid. Canonical is in the right. Canonical's action would in NO WAY harm the openness of either linux or ZFS. The bottom line is that SFC is stirring up trouble over a fabricated "problem" where no problem of any kind in reality exists.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bugger these obstructionist troublemakers

      Would you mind telling this to Oracle's lawyers ?

      1. DainB Bronze badge

        Re: Bugger these obstructionist troublemakers

        What Oracle has to do with it ? They can release their code under any license they want or do not release at all, end of the story.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          What does Oracle have to do with it?

          So Sun, who wrote ZFS, was bought by Oracle. They own the rights.

          Linux was a competitor to Sun's Solaris.

          When Sun OpenSourced ZFS, they explicitly said they didn't want it in Linux, so the deliberately picked a GPL incompatible license. That is what they said - it wasn't a mistake.

          Since then, the licence has not been changed. So Oracle probably thinks the same way.

          If Oracle dual license their copyright code, only then will ZFS not have problems in Linux (BSD is ok, btw, Sun chose the licence that way, and explained their thinking)

        2. Raumkraut

          Re: Bugger these obstructionist troublemakers

          What Oracle has to do with it ? They can release their code under any license they want or do not release at all, end of the story.

          Except it's not Oracle that would be distributing the combined/derivative work. It's Canonical.

          By the SFC's reasoning (which, having read, I am inclined to agree with) Canonical would need to either infringe the GPLv2 by distributing the Linux kernel under CDDL, or infringe the CDDL by distributing ZFS under GPLv2.

          Oracle don't like having their copyrights infringed.

          1. Bronek Kozicki

            Re: Bugger these obstructionist troublemakers

            Any hint what might SFC say about e.g. distributions making nvidia.ko available to users? Because if this module can be legally distributed (and it is closed source), so can be ZFS on Linux . Which is open source, although incompatible with GPL which means it cannot be merged into Linux sources (IMO good thing, as it would bifurcate OpenZFS and made ZFS filesystems incompatible between platforms). To me it seems that SFC are simply stirring the trouble.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @Bronek Kozicki - Re: Bugger these obstructionist troublemakers

              Making a module available is not the same thing as being allowed to legally distribute it. If as you say this module can be legally distributed, I'm sure you will have no difficulty to point us to an official document from Nvidia legal department pertaining to this topic.

              Like a lot of people on this forum, you need a better understanding of strong copyleft licenses and their purpose. I'm not saying this kind of license is good or bad, it's just that they serve a purpose and if we don't agree we should simply avoid them.

              1. Bronek Kozicki

                Re: @Bronek Kozicki - Bugger these obstructionist troublemakers

                @AC yes I am pretty certain that distributing nvidia.ko is legal, and that is because I've read discussions on this topic and this is how I learned about EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL . If you use a bit of google-fu you will find history of breakages in nvidia.ko , whenever kernel developers take pieces of kernel functionality away from non-GPL modules, i.e. wrap exported kernel symbol under EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. I think last time it happened in kernel version 4.2

                You might also learn that ZFS on Linux is very careful not to use such symbols either, as it would prevent ZFS modules from loading.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  @Bronek - Re: @Bronek Kozicki - Bugger these obstructionist troublemakers

                  No, not discussions, I mean something like an official document from Nvidia. And pretty certain will not shield you in court.

                  1. Bronek Kozicki

                    Re: Bugger these obstructionist troublemakers

                    I am certainly not going to hire a lawyer to give an opinion for you. Lawyers are expensive, if you have this kind of money to throw away, be my guest. I can give you some links if you are interested, though:

                    The GPL and modules

                    Ongoing dispute over the value of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() function

                    Examining Loadable Kernel Modules Under the General Public License V2

                    Short version: kernel module is considered "derivative work" if it relies on any of Linux own interfaces. These are all marked EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL . On the other hand, a work which only employs "standard interfaces", that is set of functions which can be reasonably provided by a kernel of any operating system, is not considered "derivative work". Such functions can be recognized in kernel sources by EXPORT_SYMBOL.

  5. ultimate_noobie

    Let Oracle sue

    All Canonical has to do is invoke the "larger work" component of CDDL and distribute the zfs.ko source under CDDL. Linux stays GPL, kernel module sources stay CDDL and nobody's license is infringed. At worst, the SFC can claim that Canonical has to provide a public domain/BSD licensed shim as a bridge (which is how others have handled such 'incompatibilities' in the past). As someone who was around the first time the CDDL vs GPL holy war came up, it just sounds like the SFC is still trying to bury one license for it's favorite.

    Side note: The whole argument is kinda moot for me since I use FreeBSD which has had ZFS for pretty much ever now. It's just funny to me that something named the "Software Freedom Conservancy" is trying to create arguments to erase a license they don't like. Nothing like watching someone argue about the "right kind" of freedom :)

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Let Oracle sue

      Not Oracle's beef. Fuckwit GPL zealots.

    2. Bronek Kozicki

      Re: Let Oracle sue

      Oracle does not and cannot sue anyone for using ZFS, because it was made open source under CDDL license which allows such things as FreeNAS or ZFS on Linux. It is GPL lawyers who are not happy, not Oracle.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @ultimate_noobie - Re: Let Oracle sue

      The fact that you were around the first time does not necessarily make you right. And where did you get the idea that SFC wants CDDL to be erased ? They only warn against combining the two in an improper manner that's all.

  6. frank ly

    Does anyone have crystal balls?

    "Oracle famously fought a protracted lawsuit with NetApp over ZFS and who can employ it and when."

    Could there be a situation in the future where someone produces a product or appliance that uses Ubuntu (including ZFS), where this product sells well and makes lots of money for its manufacturer? If so, might Oracle sue them for use of ZFS?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Does anyone have crystal balls?

      TrueNAS/FreeNAS are products/appliances that sell well and use *BSD and ZFS. Sure, they are not large enough to trouble Oracle in the high-end market. But as long as it complies with the OpenSolaris license, I can't see how Oracle could sue them.

      1. Bronek Kozicki

        Re: Does anyone have crystal balls?

        Oracle does not and cannot sue anyone for using ZFS, because it was made open source under CDDL license which allows such things as FreeNAS or ZFS on Linux. If someone distributed Oracle's own closed source branch of ZFS, that would be entirely different story - but I imagine they guard this source just like they guard Oracle's.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Bronek - Re: Does anyone have crystal balls?

          What do you mean by FreeNAS on Linux ?

          Anyway, for your information, currently BSD is the only license that is close to your ideal of free and open source software. Like GPL, CDDL is not entirely free in that you still have some obligations.

          1. Bronek Kozicki

            Re: @Bronek - Does anyone have crystal balls?

            Well OK I think I failed to make it clear - I do not have beef with GPL, in fact I am very grateful to Linux Foundation , FSF , Red Hat and others for allowing me to use Linux, git, GCC and other GPL tools and continuously improving them. But I am bothered by lawyers picking fights against another open source license, simply because it is more permissive than GPL, especially when (as it appears to me) they do not have a leg to stand on.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @Bronek - Re: @Bronek - Does anyone have crystal balls?

              Would you mind pointing us to lawyers fighting against BSD license which is the most permissive of all ?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why not ...

    put more effort into btrfs...?

    1. HmmmYes

      Re: Why not ...

      Design limitations compared to ZFS.

      1. phuzz Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: Why not ...

        But at least neither of them murder your wife (see the far right column).

  8. TeeCee Gold badge
    Facepalm

    Free licenses.

    I am terribly sorry, but if you feel the need to tell me, in writing, what my exact definition of "free" should be then congratulations. You Are The Fucking Problem.

    ....and if you are prepared to sue over it, well you've now graduated from problem to c*nt.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @TeeCee - Re: Free licenses.

      Sorry to bring you down from your high horses but what they actually feel is the need to tell you about their definition of free. As long as you're talking about your own work you can define free anyway you like but when you're using GPL software you should make an effort to understand and follow the letter and the spirit of its license. Alternatively, you can bitch or laugh at it and walk away.

      So, we're speaking of whose graduation here ?

  9. PushF12
    Headmaster

    Oracle/Canonical licensing deal

    Has nobody here ever done business with Oracle or Canonical?

    An exclusive licensing deal for ZFS was probably signed a year ago.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @PushF12 - Re: Oracle/Canonical licensing deal

      In that case, distributing ZFS with Ubuntu would clearly put them in violation of GPL license, unless they can extend the benefits of that particular licensing to each and every Linux distribution. They can enter a licensing or patent agreement but it must not be an exclusive one, something similar to what Samba devs did when they paid Microsoft for the permission to use some of the IP related to SMB protocols.

  10. Olius

    Wasn't this already settled?

    I wonder if someone with a better memory than me can correct me on this...

    Didn't this argument already rage some years ago about non-GPL binary-only modules being loaded in to Linux, and Linus settled this by implementing the "tainted" bit... so that a user can optionally load in a binary mod and it would "taint" the kernel - so any stack traces would show that it wasn't "pure"

    And then I thought there were much discussions and possibly court cases which decided that loading "binary" modules was not the same as merging the source code, so therefore the incompatible licensing didn't apply.

    Was this something to do with nvidia's closed source modules?

    I hope someone can correct me on this, it's all a bit hazy now, and I may have imagined some of it...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Olius - Re: Wasn't this already settled?

      This is the technical aspect but you're not addressing the legality of obtaining and distributing the code. According to what you just said, I could take Windows, add some components and then distribute it under another license.

      As for Nvidia, if you ask their lawyers they will tell you who and under which conditions can legally (read again the word following "can") distribute their module. What this means (and a lot of people find it difficult to grasp) is you can get Nvidia module from any source, in any form and install it however you please but no Linux distribution is allowed to distribute it together with GPL software.

    2. thames

      Re: Wasn't this already settled?

      The "tainted" bit was just to tell the kernel developers that there was a proprietary close source module loaded into the kernel, so that the kernel developers wouldn't waste time working on bug reports for problems they had no source code for. I think the main reason for this originally had to do with the numerous bugs in NVidia's proprietary video driver (which was the number one cause of Windows crashes too), but they made the solution generic to cover other cases as well.

      The basic idea is that if you submit a bug report and the "tainted" bit is set, the kernel developers will tell you they aren't going to waste their time on it. If you can reproduce the problem without using proprietary closed source drivers, then they'll accept the report.

      The above doesn't affect ordinary users since they are normally getting their software from their distro, not direct from the kernel developers. Your distro is the one to file bug reports with. The kernel developers on the other hand are dealing with the distros and with various hardware vendors, and the latter in particular are often trying to push bugs they created off onto someone else to solve for them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wasn't this already settled?

        Ahhh, the damned hardware vendors, Linux can run without hardware, right? It was "funny" I coudn't find a Debian 7 driver for Dell's PCIe SSD disks... ah, that devilish high performance hardware! Better to support only outdated, slow hardware as long as it is not "tainted" by proprietary code!

      2. Olius

        Re: Wasn't this already settled?

        Cheers Thames - thanks for jogging my memory :-)

  11. Charlie Clark Silver badge
    Mushroom

    GPL is make work for lawyers

    Kids - just say no!

  12. CAPS LOCK

    If I want ZFS, and I do, I use FreeBSD or Nas4Free...

    What I don't want is Ubuntu introducing more problems and issues with downstream distros like Mint.

    1. Tom 7

      Re: If I want ZFS, and I do, I use FreeBSD or Nas4Free...

      If I want ZFS I'd use whatever distribution I felt like and compile it in myself.

    2. Richard_L

      Re: If I want ZFS, and I do, I use FreeBSD or Nas4Free...

      "What I don't want is Ubuntu introducing more problems and issues with downstream distros like Mint."

      Ok, this isn't much use for other Ubuntu derivatives, but for Mint at least, you can cut out the middleman and install the Mint Debian edition

  13. Bronek Kozicki
    Mushroom

    Few points to clear the confusion:

    1) ZFS is in two "branches" - one is Oracle proprietary work which is closed source and I very much doubt Canonical developers had seen any of it. Oracle bought ZFS with Sun, updated its license and are now selling this as closed source. This is often called Oracle ZFS

    2) The other "branch" is of course under open source license it was originally published by Sun, that is CDDL. To avoid confusion this work is normally called OpenZFS and Oracle has no claim to it - it cannot have any, since its has been made open source before they bought Sun. Simply put, OpenZFS is not derivative work of Oracle ZFS.

    3) ZFS on Linux , i.e. ZOL belongs to family of implementations under OpenZFS (others are Illumos - considered to be upstream for ZOL, there is also FreeBSD, and there are more)

    4) Proprietary modules are actually allowed in Linux kernel - there are two difficulties (put in place by kernel developers to nudge the companies to instead release their work as GPL-compatible open source to Linux kernel). One is that kernel with any non-GPL compatible module loaded in memory is considered to be "tainted", which can make obtaining support more difficult, and second is that such modules may only use subset of symbols exported by kernel, to avoid being considered "derivative works of Linux kernel"

    5) The last part of above is actually important, because this is not only legal limitation, it is also enforced by kernel module loader. All kernel modules which refer to any symbol tagged as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL , but are not tagged (yes, it is actual thing set in the module binary) under license compatible with GPL, will not be loaded by kernel. Simple as that.

    6) Hence authors of modules such as nvidia.ko (closed source) or ZFS on Linux (open source, despite license incompatible with GPL) go to lengths to avoid any use of symbols which are EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL - because otherwise they won't load on regular users' computers.

    7) Since modules belonging to ZFS on Linux are actually loading into kernel for Ubuntu users, I can only see two possible explanations:

    7.1. they are not making any use of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbols, hence cannot be considered "derivative works of Linux kernel", which means Conservancy has no leg to stand on

    7.2. they are making use of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbols but Canonical modified sources to hide the fact - either by changing ZFS license to be compatible with GPL (thus violating ZFS license) or by replacing EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL with EXPORT_SYMBOL in kernel sources, or modifying kernel in some other way, hence violating Linux license.

    8) Both above are actually very easy to verify, since ZFS on Linux sources are open and easy to read (and submit patches, too) for anyone on github . Also both ZFS and Linux kernel sources can be downloaded from Ubuntu and checked against license violations.

    Since it does not seem like Conservancy did either of the above things (otherwise they would keep quiet), to me this seems like pure lawyering against another open source project, simply because it is not compatible with GPL. In this context it makes sense to explain why ZFS is under CDDL - Sun engineers who wrote it actually chose this license (not the company lawyers - although they obviously helped) exactly for this reason, to avoid their work being taken over by GPL and its zealous lawyers. They wanted their work to stay, guaranteed, under more open (i.e. less limiting to users) license. Which led to the result that ZFS sources cannot be merged into Linux kernel (unless by end user, who is not distributing anything). But distributing binary modules is a different thing, and if nVidia can legally do it, so can Canonical.

    PS I am not a lawyer and there can be mistakes in the above PS2 I do not claim copyright on this post and I do allow it to be cited in parts or in whole by anyone PS3 my signature is my real name, if anyone wanting to cite me wants to know.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      To avoid confusion this work is normally called OpenZFS and Oracle has no claim to it - it cannot have any, since its has been made open source before they bought Sun.

      IANAL either, but I don't think that statement is correct. Releasing a product as open source doesn't mean surrendering the rights to it, it means licensing those rights. Sun chose to license them under CDDL, and Oracle (having bought Sun) will likely have acquired the ownership of those licensed rights as Sun's legal successor, unless the acquisition contracts said otherwise. For the puposes of the legal arguments here, Oracle ≡ Sun.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        IANAL either, but I don't think that statement is correct.

        It is with the following proviso: any subsequent changes in the licence require the agreement of all contributors. Otherwise a fork is required. Oracle has wisely chosen to fork OracleZFS.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Otherwise a fork is required.

          That doesn't change anything as far as the rights to the code are concerned. Sun released it under license, and all use of that code, forked or otherwise, is governed by the terms of that original license. You can't fork a copy & release that fork under a different license just because you don't like the original license terms. Oracle could do that, but no-one else can.

          1. Bronek Kozicki

            Oracle could change license terms of the branch they own, i.e. Oracle ZFS. They cannot do it with OpenZFS unless they get approval of all developers who contributed to OpenZFS under CDDL. This is specifically why Oracle has no claim on ZFS (or more precisely, on OpenZFS). Now, since Oracle is not involved here at all, can we please get back to Conservancy?

            1. Vic

              Oracle could change license terms of the branch they own, i.e. Oracle ZFS. They cannot do it with OpenZFS unless they get approval of all developers who contributed to OpenZFS under CDDL

              Oracle can relicence any files it owns. This might not constitute all of OpenZFS, but it does necessarily constitute the lion's share. Stripping out the bits that aren't owned by Oracle would leave you with a much more complete codebase than stripping out the bits that are owned by Oracle...

              This is specifically why Oracle has no claim on ZFS (or more precisely, on OpenZFS)

              Oracle does have claims on OpenZFS - just not on the entirety of it.

              Vic.

          2. Charlie Clark Silver badge
            Headmaster

            It's Oracle we're talking about: they created a private fork rather than try and get everyone to agree to changes.

            1. Bronek Kozicki

              But Oracle's own private fork of ZFS is not the subject of discussion here - it is closed source!

              As for the history of OpenZFS it was originally released by Sun, under CDDL as "the ZFS" part of OpenSolaris, and since this release it started receiving contributions from external developers under CDDL (because as you probably noticed, CDDL is an open source license). There is nothing Oracle could have done, short of buying Sun few years earlier and then rejecting all contributions under CDDL! Duh, can we finally stop getting Oracle involved into OpenZFS?

              The whole thing is about one open source license, incompatible with other open source license, and both appearing in one product (i.e. Ubuntu)

              1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

                Duh, can we finally stop getting Oracle involved into OpenZFS?

                No, because everyone wants to vent their frustration on Larry's evil empire. Even, or perhaps, especially when they've got nothing to do with something.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Ask yourself why Oracle can't stop MariaDB fork of MySQL. The license on the old code stays even after you acquired it, you can't revoke/terminate it (unless there's a revoke/termination clause...).

        Oracle may choose not to release *new* code into OpenZFS and its license (just like it does with MySQL), but the code released under CDDL is still available under that license, regardless of the actual owner - just like MySQL and its license.

        1. Vic

          Ask yourself why Oracle can't stop MariaDB fork of MySQL. The license on the old code stays even after you acquired it, you can't revoke/terminate it (unless there's a revoke/termination clause...).

          This is both true and simultaneously irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

          You're making the age-old mistake of thinking that because someone does not hold all rights to a piece of code, that means they hold no rights to it. This is simply not true; Oracle still holds the copyrights to all the code in ZFS, and much of it in OpenZFS, and those copyrights can still be enforced against anyone distributing without a licence. That's why keeping to the terms of any FOSS licence is so important - because as soon as you breach the licence, you have no right to distribute, and can be prosecuted under the appropriate copyright legislation.

          Vic.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Pint

      Few points to clear the confusion

      You're ruining it for everyone with all those facts!

    3. Jeremy Allison

      Details matter.

      Disclosure, I'm on the Board of Directors of Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC).

      This link:

      https://lwn.net/Articles/676946/

      shows that the ZFS-on-Linux developers copied GPLv2 code from the Linux kernel into their zfs on linux source tree in order to avoid having to use an EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL function that they needed.

      The haven't been careful, or clean in developing this. Details like this *matter*.

      Everyone wants ZFS inside Linux. Doing a dirty, careless hack-job that plays fast and loose with the licenses isn't the right way to do this.

      Conservancy is doing Canonical a favour by pointing out the folly in what they are doing here (IMHO of course).

      1. thames

        Re: Details matter.

        Going from what Canonical said in their press release:

        https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/02/18/zfs-licensing-and-linux/

        it sounds like they are taking the position that ZFS falls into the same category as the proprietary NVidia drivers, which seem to have been tolerated for many years. That is, that neither are a derivative work of the Linux kernel. E.g. they said "equivalent exceptions have existed for many years, for various other stand alone, self-contained, non-GPL kernel modules".

        I'm not saying they're right, but I suspect that if questioned by Linux developers they will be doing a lot of pointing at the NVidia driver and saying "well, explain that one then".

        From their perspective, they may need to worry more about Oracle. SUN created CDDL to be deliberately incompatible with GPLv2, and Oracle has shown no sign of changing that. Of course Oracle could have an announcement waiting in the wings about re-licencing or dual licensing of ZFS but that's just speculation at this point.

        Most Ubuntu users won't be affected by this either way, since most will not be using ZFS. I suspect this is a "tick box" announcement to create a buzz about Ubuntu's LXD cloud container stuff. In other words, we are talking about a small subset of Ubuntu users (since even most Ubuntu cloud users won't be using LXD). If Canonical has to do a climb down because of pressure from either the Linux or the Oracle side of things, they'll still have generated the "buzz".

        In the long run, I think that both ZFS and BTRFS are going to be dead issues, as someone will come up with a new file system that is oriented around wringing the most out of solid state drives.

        1. Jeremy Allison

          Re: Details matter.

          Nothing of what you posted addressed what I said in any way. I am pointing to direct copying of Linux kernel source code under GPLv2 into zfs-on-linux because the code inside the kernel was restricted to GPL-only modules and the ZFS developers wanted to use it. I know little about the NVidia drivers but I very much doubt their developers have been careless enough to do the same sort of thing.

          Don't conflate the two issues. The zfs on Linux code is clearly not clean, and I'm amazed Canonical have tried to ignore these problems to sell to commercial customers. If I were a Canonical cloud customer I'd be calling them right now asking them what they hell they thought they were doing putting my business and my customers at legal risk.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Details matter.

          Obviously you don't know much about ZFS and BTFRS. Most of their design is little tied to the underlying storage mechanism. Both of them can be optimized for different kind of storage types, but it's the high-level features to ensure data reliability that matter to their users. Data redundancy, corruption checks and healing, snapshots, and so on work regardless if the underlying disks is a spinning one or not.

        3. es20490446e

          Re: Details matter.

          It is not the same as NVIDIA drivers because those hasn't permission to be used, but ZFS has:

          Linus Torvalds (http://goo.gl/NcOmv0):

          One gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin).

          That is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux behaviour.

      2. Jan 0 Silver badge

        Re: Details matter.

        > Everyone wants ZFS inside Linux

        Well no, surely any sane person wants ZFS inside a systemd-free Linux.

      3. Bronek Kozicki

        Re: Details matter.

        @Jeremy

        Thanks for the link, have an upvote. I know I'm going to get downvoted for this, but you say

        "Doing a dirty, careless hack-job that plays fast and loose with the licenses isn't the right way to do this."

        ... and show this piece of code as a proof of "fast and loose":

        q->flush_flags = flush & (REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA);

        I assume you are not a programmer, because if you were you would have to admit that this is an obvious way to copy two flags from "flush". It is not "fast and loose", it is the way this should be done, just like addition does require use of " + " (unless one wants to make life difficult to other programmers). It does not matter that the same line of code appeared in the kernel - it is an obvious way to do a thing. Honestly I'm having a hard time trying to imagine a different (readable and correct) way to do the same, preferably in one line.

        Also, I noticed elsewhere that an Oracle employee submitted the same piece of code to Linux kernel and then to ZFS on Linux. Good luck in trying to remove his right to decide what he can do with his code, to try to use this as a proof of ZOL "stealing" Linux kernel code.

        1. Bronek Kozicki

          Re: Details matter.

          I take away that last paragraph above, since I looked at both kernel and ZOL code and I see commit author is different. That of course plays against ZOL - I must admit I am surprised.

    4. Vic

      Oracle has no claim to it - it cannot have any, since its has been made open source before they bought Sun

      This is entirely incorrect - what you are describing is "public domain". No part of ZFS is public domain; it is all copyrighted software, whatever licence is used. Oracle very much has a claim on it, even if it must honour the rights granted to recipients by the CDDL.

      PS I am not a lawyer

      That does rather tend to show...

      Vic.

  14. ntevanza
    Coat

    Gnu's Not Urinating

    That's all.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @ntevanza - Re: Gnu's Not Urinating

      Please do grow-up!

      If it weren't for GNU we would not have Linux today. Just ask yourself how comes BSD does not spark any kind of passion among us here or why Google has chosen this pesky license for Android's Linux kernel.

      1. PaulFrederick

        Re: @ntevanza - Gnu's Not Urinating

        Actually Linux was originally released under another license. So not only could we have had Linux, but we actually did, without the GPL license. BSD users can be as passionate as they want to be. Google does not get to choose how Linux is licensed either. You're 0 for 3 so far.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @PaulFrederick - Re: @ntevanza - Gnu's Not Urinating

          Google could have chosen BDS like Apple did or, heck, write their own kernel. And my point is that GPL is exactly what made Linux widespread today compared to BSD: companies feel safe in knowing they can contribute without fear of having to have their code hijacked.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @PaulFrederick - @ntevanza - Gnu's Not Urinating

            I don't think anyone chose BDS[sic]

            Apple chose Mach, which came out of NeXT. (remember them?) Their userland is FreeBSD-based, but the kernel is effectively their own, and that's what you were discussing was the use of Linux in Android instead of one of many other kernels available.

  15. Alistair
    Windows

    One last missing point on distribution

    Several folks have raised the Nvidia/AMD proprietary drivers! point.

    Distribution is the other element of the pivot here - many distributions park the nvidia and amd video drivers < and often quite a few other odd creatures > in a separate distribution path, apart from the kernel itself. As pointed out above, not using certain APIs in the kernel and not using certain symbols exported from the kernel avoids the 'derivative works' contamination, and the 'kernel taint' switch avoids the secondary path of inheritance. I'm pretty sure the adobe licensed code(s) end up in the same territory as CDDL code, its fine to make it available, just don't put it in with our GPL stuff.

    Gentoo and BSD both avoid the distributing from a repository 'binary code' issue, which is a third element of the GPLv2. <ports/emerge>

    I gather the impression that Canonical intends to put ZFS into the primary distribution path <and at a guess into their installer>, which is where they will fall afoul of the combination of GPLv2 and CDDL bashing heads.

    1. Bronek Kozicki

      Re: One last missing point on distribution

      I believe there is no legal or technical requirement of not mixing non-GPL binaries with GPL ones in a repository, but I'd be happy to be corrected. Of course GPL zealots do not like it, but that does not make it a requirement, just "good manners".

      Also there is a very good reason to make ZFS available by default, e.g. by putting it in bootable "live" image, because it enables fixing ZFS filesystem from such a CD (or USB, as the case might be). Of course a purist could make boot image himself with any set of extra binaries wanted, Ubuntu just makes it easier. I know since I made my own boot image (Arch actually, not Ubuntu) with ZFS module added, and it was very useful on occasions.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Bronek - Re: One last missing point on distribution

        Beyond the legal or technical requirement there is another aspect, respectability. Historically, the GNU crowd has been painted as a bunch of lawless code thieves with no respect for (proprietary) licensing. Making sure they have clear rules like the separation of repositories help protecting them against legal attacks because it is much easier to shutdown the non free repository instead of shutting down all your repositories and prove you're not infringing on someone's IP.

        And please stop using the word zealot, what good is a license if you're not enforcing it ? May I remind you that in the beginning GPL had no lawyers and legal enforcing was not on their radar. Then when corporate entities big and small, salivating at the vast amount of code sitting there unattended started poking holes or trying to brute force the license the need for legal protection came up naturally and now a lot of people (you included) complain about it. My advice for you, don't use GPL and write your own software then license it under which license you might please.

        1. PaulFrederick

          Re: @Bronek - One last missing point on distribution

          Wow, what color is the sky in your world? Disable a whole repository for one potential software license violation? That makes sense, in a print shop. Stop the presses! Electronic data is a tad more flexible than that though.

          Lawless code thieves? I'm sure folks have tried to level accusations, I'm not sure how legitimate any of those claims were though. The only reason free, and non-free software is partitioned into different repositories is purely for convenience.

          Oh, and you don't have to prove you're not infringing, proof is wholly on the accuser. Zealot is a good word. Especially when it comes to describing the more vocal of the FLOSS crowd. I'm sure RMS had lawyers on retainer from day 1 of writing the GPL, and forming the Free Software Foundation too. That would be 7 years before Linus even released Linux.

          My advise to you, is remain silent, because you're removing all doubt.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @PaulFrederick - Re: @Bronek - One last missing point on distribution

            You're blissfully unaware of the Google vs. Oracle legal fight for just 7 lines of code or you wouldn't tell us a legitimate IP owner or patent troll would not dare asking you to stop infringing. And Google is still not out of the woods yet. You have no idea about what IP litigation can be when you're at the wrong end of a lawsuit.

            As for what you're sure of, a little bit of evidence will go a long way.

        2. KeithR

          Re: @Bronek - One last missing point on distribution

          "And please stop using the word zealot"

          Stop jumping up and down and frothing at the mouth like one, then.

      2. Havin_it
        Holmes

        Re: One last missing point on distribution

        >I believe there is no legal or technical requirement of not mixing non-GPL binaries with GPL ones in a repository, but I'd be happy to be corrected.

        That's quite correct, no license that I'm aware of stipulates against _how_ binaries are distributed (as long as the source is also available), or what other binaries they're distributed with; however, the issue here is that the ZFSoL module in and of itself is violating the kernel's GPL license, so is not allowed to be distributed at all.

        As Jeremy explained above, it's not even about license incompatibility really; it's that the ZFSoL developers, to get around that incompatibility, just stole code from the kernel (brazen direct copy-paste). Therefore what Canonical are compiling and packaging amounts to flat-out copyright theft*, nothing more esoteric than that.

        * Yes, I'm using the RIAA's bullshit emotive hyperbole to my own ends. What of it? I'm a zealot, you know ;)

        1. Bronek Kozicki

          Re: One last missing point on distribution

          @Havin_it - I'd like to see examples of "it's that the ZFSoL developers, to get around that incompatibility, just stole code from the kernel (brazen direct copy-paste)", because that is rather big claim to make.

          1. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

            Re: One last missing point on distribution

            > I'd like to see examples of "it's that the ZFSoL developers, to get around that incompatibility, just stole code from the kernel

            See the link Jeremy posted earlier ...

            But, there is in fact a possible easy way round that. Provided the author of that line of code (and anything else allegedly stolen from the Linux kernel) can be identified AND he/she has not assigned copyright to someone else, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever stopping that person from also licensing it under the CDDL - which then makes the problem moot.

            And as to "why does it work for nVidia ?". Apart from the way they distribute it - a binary module and a source shim to be compiled for the kernel in use - nVidia are able to give permission for their code to be distributed. I would not be at all surprised if (as has been mentioned) they actually like the module being shipped since it allows people to use their hardware - and if people can use their hardware then that's good for sales.

            Of course, there's no such upside for Oracle, so I could see them spotting an opportunity for a shakedown ...

    2. Infernoz Bronze badge

      Re: One last missing point on distribution

      The problem is, ZFS would be excellent for boot disk protection, and to do this, it would need to be loaded early by or in the OS.

  16. Infernoz Bronze badge
    Facepalm

    An OS without ZFS support sucks, because journalling filesystems are so dated.

    ZFS is not just seriously more robust, it doesn't need nonsense like partitions or bolted on versioning/RAID, and is transactional and multi-threaded, so does need breakable stuff like journalling.

    It can also be repaired on the fly without OS reboots, unlike in-use journalling filesystems.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: An OS without ZFS support sucks, because journalling filesystems are so dated.

      Then you should not use GPL licensed software, that's all.

      1. Bronek Kozicki

        Re: An OS without ZFS support sucks, because journalling filesystems are so dated.

        or build your own ZFS module from sources, like I do.

        GPL is not the only open source out there, it just appears this one has the most aggressive lawyers - admittedly with most (re)sources to look after

        1. John Sanders
          Linux

          Re: An OS without ZFS support sucks, because journalling filesystems are so dated.

          """GPL is not the only open source out there, it just appears this one has the most aggressive lawyers - admittedly with most (re)sources to look after"""

          When you have people like VMware feeling liberal copying and pasting your code you need all the aggressive lawyers you can find.

          And the funniest bit is that we are talking about code that anyone can download, use or modify at will, the GPL limits binary distribution only so no-one can grab GPL code and keep it for themselves.

          If you want the advantage of using an off the shelve kernel and OS for free but do not like the rules, go write your own, not hard to understand isn't?

          Why so surprised people protect their property? because is free as in beer (in addition as free as in freedom)?

  17. TJ1

    OpenZFS CDDL license changes

    Not obvious on the face of it but the OpenZFS license [0] - CDDL v1 [1] - itself includes clause 4.1 allowing "Sun Microsystem, Inc." and therefore its successor-in-interest Oracle to *modify* the text of the CDDL licence itself.

    As the current OpenZFS license does *not* specify the version of the licence that applies it means in theory Oracle could modify the CDDL and subsequent distributions of OpenZFS (and other projects using the CDDL) would be covered by the *modified* license.

    This was pointed out in the Hacker News thread to one of the core OpenZFS developers [2] who subsequently reported that from now on they would include a CDDL version specification in new code [3].

    This is precisely why the Linux kernel is licensed [4] as "...the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated." rather than the default GPL v2 [5] licensing phrase "... either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

    [0] https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/blob/master/COPYRIGHT

    [1] https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/blob/master/OPENSOLARIS.LICENSE

    [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11178071

    [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11179121

    [4] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/COPYING?id=2c3cf7d5f6105bb957df125dfce61d4483b8742d#n9

    [5] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/COPYING?id=2c3cf7d5f6105bb957df125dfce61d4483b8742d#n314

    1. Havin_it

      Re: OpenZFS CDDL license changes

      Well, not precisely why, but same sort of motive. Linus & co. didn't like the GPLv3 as it was deemed too restrictive (anti-Tivoization clause?) so they pegged the kernel at v2. Linus was always a little more "pragmatic" than RMS on such matters so this may even have been before v3 was drafted (I'm too lazy to do research).

      1. Charles 9

        Re: OpenZFS CDDL license changes

        Not like Linus has a choice in the matter. Changing the kernel to GPLv3 would require ALL the developers to either agree or drop their code out of the source tree. Have you seen the contributors list lately?

  18. egreen99

    SFC's stance would outlaw all commercial use of Linux

    There isn't a single commercial user of Linux who hasn't taken advantage of the "Linus Loophole", where Linus says that a self-contained proprietary software module that calls exported Linux OS API's is *not* a violation of the GPL v2. Every single home router, every single vendor of Linux with proprietary kernel extensions (*including Oracle*), every single Android phone that includes an implementation of Microsoft's proprietary ExFAT to handle large flash chips, every single storage appliance that has their own proprietary storage stack including VC and Wall Street darlings like Pure Storage, multiple multi-billion-dollar industries in other words are out of business if SFC's deranged interpretation of Linus's licensing terms gains some sort of legal legs.

    But that's not going to happen. They have no -- zero -- standing, which is what's necessary to sue in a court of law. They aren't the people who wrote Linux. That's Linus Torvalds and his merry band of contributors. They aren't the people who chose the licensing terms for Linux. That's Linus Torvalds and his merry band of contributors. Linus is fine with distributing proprietary modules, and Linus (and his designee the Linux Foundation) is the only person with standing to sue here, because it's Linus's code that proprietary modules are calling. It seems to me that this is an effort by a failed organization to get publicity and contributors to keep its founder and only employee gainfully employed making ridiculous statements about things he has no standing to do anything about, rather than anything we should be worrying about.

  19. es20490446e
    Boffin

    The Software Freedom Conservancy is wrong

    The article on ZFS and Linux (https://goo.gl/T919SR) ignores and important point:

    Richard Stallman (https://goo.gl/9YYpel):

    The copyright holders of Linux can give permission to use Linux in ways not authorized by GPL version 2.

    Linus Torvalds (http://goo.gl/q8zyAb):

    At least under US copyright law, and at least if you see Linux as a "collective work", I am actually the sole owner of copyright in the collective work of the Linux kernel.

    Linus Torvalds (http://goo.gl/NcOmv0):

    One gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin).

    That is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux behaviour.

    So Linus is implicitly giving permission to use the ZFS module, in his right of doing so.

    One can argue that is something bad to do, but from that moment it becomes a matter of personal choice.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like