FSF Issues Fresh Statement Over ZFS On Linux With GPL Enforcement

[anda_skoa]

And I don't think the fsf will go to Court with this, since there is a lot of other gplviolations they don't care like the whole ARM stuff

Since the FSF is not a copyright holder of any of the involved code in this case, I wonder if they are also not involved in the "lot of other gplviolations" that you seem to reference.

Remember only a copyright holder or someone authorized by one can take legal action.

I am pretty sure the FSF cares about all violations of copyleft licenses, but obviously they can only pursue those directly for which they have legal standing.

Cheers,
_

[anda_skoa]

On what grounds can Oracle take legal action here?

Well, considering that the CDDL was crafted by SUN's lawyers specifically to prevent code licensed under it to be use on Linux, they must have seen some legal options in enforcing that.

If their lawyers were even only half as good in their jobs as their engineers at theirs, they wouldn't have come up with a license that failed its main objective.

Cheers,
_

[anda_skoa]

Actually, it is because Apple have a "5 concurrent installs" policy for all downloads/purchases from the App Store. This contravenes your GPL freedom to run the code wherever you want as ios prevents user installs otherwise. It's a legal technicality IMO - my intent as a developer at least is just to make sure the source code stays available.

I am actually not sure that this isn't just an urban legend.
One a user has received the code, either as part of the app installation or via the "written offer" option (e.g. requested on a medium or via a download), they have the same options that the original developer had, e.g. build and install on a developer setup, build and upload to the app store, etc.

Cheers,
_

[doom_Oo7]

I am actually not sure that this isn't just an urban legend.
One a user has received the code, either as part of the app installation or via the "written offer" option (e.g. requested on a medium or via a download), they have the same options that the original developer had, e.g. build and install on a developer setup, build and upload to the app store, etc.

Cheers,
_

Indeed, since Xcode 7 which does not require fees to upload software to the phone one can put GPL-licensed software on the store without any license problems since it's always possible to change and reupload the code afterwards without any costs.
You can even statically link proprietary apps to LGPL libs for people using Qt, you just have to provide your object files.

[Jabberwocky]

Since the FSF is not a copyright holder of any of the involved code in this case, I wonder if they are also not involved in the "lot of other gplviolations" that you seem to reference.

Remember only a copyright holder or someone authorized by one can take legal action.

I am pretty sure the FSF cares about all violations of copyleft licenses, but obviously they can only pursue those directly for which they have legal standing.

Cheers,
_

I've always wondered about this, back in 2008 I noticed Mikrotik violated the GPL with their nstreme protocol and various other kernel changes. I loved their hardware, but I had lots of problems with their equipment being incompatible with other hardware like linksys or ubiquity which is much more open source friendly.

I helped running a community based wifi network with 400+ users which was mostly Mikrotik based. Instead of getting rid of all the Mikrotik routers, losing the nstreme and spending money the community based network did not have. It would've been awesome if I could apply some of the kernel changes to the ubiquity/(other) routers in order to make the network compatible with any device.

Copyleft violation reference: http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic....00803&p=501195

[anda_skoa]

Indeed, since Xcode 7 which does not require fees to upload software to the phone one can put GPL-licensed software on the store without any license problems since it's always possible to change and reupload the code afterwards without any costs.

Whether deployment is gratis or costs something is irrelevant, free in the context of copyleft software doesn't mean gratis.
Building might require a paid-for or even non-free compiler/tool license, deployment might require paid-for or non-free tools or even special equipment for some devices.

You can even statically link proprietary apps to LGPL libs for people using Qt, you just have to provide your object files.

True, but I think iOS can handle shared libraries, no?

Cheers,
_

[doom_Oo7]

Whether deployment is gratis or costs something is irrelevant, free in the context of copyleft software doesn't mean gratis.
Building might require a paid-for or even non-free compiler/tool license, deployment might require paid-for or non-free tools or even special equipment for some devices.

But that's what I'm saying : before if you owned an iDevice you were not "free" to upload code to a device you owned, now you are.
From the point of view of the GPL, it doesn't matter at all if the toolchain is free or non-free (as in freedom) as long as it is available [b]to use[\b] freely (i.e. generally gratis).
I can perfectly make a GPL app that may require a proprietary closed-source build tool to build, *iff* I can provide such tool on my website at no cost & no artificial usage restriction.

True, but I think iOS can handle shared libraries, no?
_

Just checked and yep, since iOS8

[caligula]

Why is it that the FSF always has to say something about other people's code? They (or GNU) never owned anything about Linux. What do Linus and the core developers have to say about this?

The FSF is always quick to moralize everyone, yet when they (more precisely GNU, but Stallman anyway) fucked the LibreCAD developers it took months for them to even issue a one-liner statement. And that is the *only* professional, usable, free (as in freedom) CAD software around.

How come they always annoy us with their "yeah-it-free-but" BS while they don't seem to do anything about the whole Android driver situation? If they adhered to their own standards they'd sue the shit out of Google and Samsung.

FSF is a communist parasite organisation. If everyone just used BSD and MIT, there would be no problems with licensing ever. Also those licenses would give the developer better skills and higher moral. GPL is great if you want to fail and deal with toenail eating communists.

[anda_skoa]

From the point of view of the GPL, it doesn't matter at all if the toolchain is free or non-free (as in freedom) as long as it is available [b]to use[\b] freely (i.e. generally gratis).
I can perfectly make a GPL app that may require a proprietary closed-source build tool to build, *iff* I can provide such tool on my website at no cost & no artificial usage restriction.

I don't think that is a requirement.
If it where there would have been no ports of GNU tools, Emacs, etc. to the various proprietary UNIX variants.
It would not have been possible to release copyleft licensed software based on VisualStudio up until gratis VS Express came along.
It would not have been possible to release copyleft licensed software for any device that needs special hardware like an EPROM burner or a JTAG adapter for software deployment.

Cheers,
_

[mike4]

Worst case: Oracle sues Canonical. Canonical goes bankrupt.