SFC Considers Combining ZFS With Linux A GPL Violation

[unixfan2001]

You've got an interesting view of capitalism.

I've got the regular view of Capitalism, shared by millions of people.
The FSF and its affiliates are no different from anti-GMO/anti-vaccine snake oil salesmen trying to push their product by making up BS conspiracy theories about the "system", claiming to fight the status quo when, in actuality, they're actively exploiting it.

[Bronek]

Um, have you ever looked at how nvidia.ko is distributed? It never is distributed with the kernel, but as a separate package, which in most cases even compiles the .ko directly on the user's machine. GPL2 limits distribution, not what you do with your software. Any non-GPL driver distributed in binary form is a violoation, I guess.

For one, nvidia.ko cannot be compiled on user machine, because it is never distributed in the source form. Its source is nVidia's proprietary IP. It is merely installed, just the same as kernel is. Secondly, just as nVidia goes to length to avoid any use of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL kernel symbols (which is enforced by kernel module loader), so does ZFS on Linux (which is very easy to verify, because ZOL sources are actually available at github). Which means that both nvidia.ko and ZOL are not bound by GPL license when calling into kernel. I do not think that Conservancy has a leg to stand on, unless they actually know any EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbol used by ZOL (in which case a patch will be welcome, to remove the dependency)

[timofonic]

For one, nvidia.ko cannot be compiled on user machine, because it is never distributed in the source form. Its source is nVidia's proprietary IP. It is merely installed, just the same as kernel is. Secondly, just as nVidia goes to length to avoid any use of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL kernel symbols (which is enforced by kernel module loader), so does ZFS on Linux (which is very easy to verify, because ZOL sources are actually available at github). Which means that both nvidia.ko and ZOL are not bound by GPL license when calling into kernel. I do not think that Conservancy has a leg to stand on, unless they actually know any EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbol used by ZOL (in which case a patch will be welcome, to remove the dependency)

Are you sure the "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" trick is really valid with GPL itself?

[andre30correia]

so much talk, ubuntu will not ship zfs module by default, you will need to install it after install or during the install as your choice, the same way as nvidia non-free drivers

[bridgman]

Baloney! GPL is all about stealing a developers code. It highly restricts how one can use open code and does so in a way that damages the development process.

Have to disagree with this. The choice of license is made by the developer... you can't retroactively apply the GPL license to a developer's code that was released under a different license (unless that license explicitly allows relicensing, which is very rare).

GPL does effectively restrict what can be done with the code (in terms of combining with code from other projects) -- I'm not disagreeing with that part of your comment -- but the developer chooses to apply those restrictions in the hope that the associated benefits outweigh them.

[doom_Oo7]

For one, nvidia.ko cannot be compiled on user machine, because it is never distributed in the source form.

Of course it is : https://packages.debian.org/sid/nvidia-kernel-source

[wodencafe]

Someone's legal interpretation of license compatibility changes over the years, and suddenly everyone is shitting themselves.

Sun may not have wanted ZFS in Linux, but considering Sun doesn't exist anymore, this becomes a moot point.

Can someone explain why they have a problem with this, in a way that doesn't invoke the Republican Party or Donald Trump?

[yogi_berra]

ZFS will make linux great again.

[johnc]

It's not about open vs closed source but LICENSE incompatibility.

So a closed-source kernel driver with private copyright license is compatible with the GPL, but ZFS isn't?

I know you're not a lawyer but at least try to make sense.

Or anybody here, explain to me how any typical Android device out there is compliant but Canonical's approach with ZFS isn't? I just want to understand the difference.

[chithanh]

johnc
There are actually many kernel developers who consider all proprietary kernel modules an infringement on their copyright.
Up to now, there has not been taken much action for whatever reason. But I guess if Christoph Hellwig's case against VMware is successful, we might see more legal action.

About the ZFS thing, I don't think anybody considers it a priority to sue Ubuntu for this. While technically the license is violated, the spirit (ie. the reciprocal nature of copyleft) isn't.