FSF Issues Fresh Statement Over ZFS On Linux With GPL Enforcement

[tigerroast]

Richard Stallman. Smokey the Polar Bear lookin' ass mofo. "Only you can prevent data-center fires!"

Why do you care about ZFS on Linux more than Oracle, FSF? Considering neither projects are your code and all. Hey, your paraplegic kernel needs work, so you might want to make chop-chop on pulling that log out of your collective eye.

[OneTimeShot]

So if I choose the GPL as my license for my code my opinion counts less that that of the FSF? Sorry but wtf?

In so much as the FSF have actual lawyers advising them with whom you would end up arguing with in court, probably. You can specify your own license terms in addition (or clarify your intention).

For example, I always add "you can put this in App Stores as long as you provide the source code with this licence" when writing GPL code. Basically it becomes dual licensed: GPL normally, my custom license only for uploading to Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. I dunno who came up with the "you can't put GPL in the Apple App store", but I think that's a technicality rather than most developers' intentions.

[CapsAdmin]

So if I choose the GPL as my license for my code my opinion counts less that that of the FSF? Sorry but wtf?

The general thing about free software is to maximize user freedom and not developer freedom. If you don't care about these things you probably shouldn't use GPL.

But choosing a GPL license isn't enough. You also have to enforce it or else companies will abuse it.

[DanL]

People claim that Oracle (who bought Sun) have "changed their mind" but, for some reason that no-one can ever seem to explain clearly, Oracle haven't modified the licence to legally show their change of heart.

I think the only way Oracle's going to clarify their stance is if they want to distribute ZFS in a similar manner, or they're so against it that they want to pursue legal action against Canonical. I don't find those scenarios likely in the near future.

My guess is either:
1. They don't agree with the FSF (i.e. they're okay with Canonical's interpretation and using/distibuting ZFS in that form), and, in that case, they either don't feel that relicensing will actually accomplish anything or don't feel strongly enough about it to put time/money/effort in relicensing.
2. They agree with the FSF that the CDDL is being violated, but either don't feel they can win in court or don't feel it hurts their bottom line enough to care.

Of course, Oracle haven't released ZFS for their own brand of Linux either, so I'm going to stick with this basically being "copyright infringement of Solaris code that happens to be have its source code posted on the Internet"

I don't think that implies that Oracle thinks it's copyright infringement (or that Oracle believes in the original Sun stance that Linux/ZFS will hurt their Solaris business significantly). If enough of Oracle's big contract Linux customers wanted ZFS support, my bet would be on it happening quickly.

[DanL]

Actually, Oracle changed their mind and modified the license. Solaris and therefore new versions of the ZFS code base are proprietary these days.

True, but OpenZFS was forked off at that time and that and subsequent development of it is what we're looking at here. I don't think we can look at the relicensing of Solaris and draw a conclusion on how Oracle feels about OpenZFS on Linux.

[Awesomeness]

I don't think we can look at the relicensing of Solaris and draw a conclusion on how Oracle feels about OpenZFS on Linux.

Sure we can. If Oracle wanted proprietary Solaris and ZFS on Linux, they could just have used a normal BSD license and get both without any legal grey area.

[Awesomeness]

So if I choose the GPL as my license for my code my opinion counts less that that of the FSF? Sorry but wtf?

If thousands of other people contributed million lines of code more than you ever wrote: Yes.

[david_lynch]

Doesn't this whole objection by the FSF boil down to the fact that they think zfs is a derivative work of the Linux kernel? If so, it's invalid. zfs clearly has a life completely apart from the Linux kernel. The zfs.ko module to allow the Linux kernel to interface with zfs could no more be considered a gpl violation than the nvidia binary blob.

[k1l_]

And another Act in this license piss Contest.
FSF is begging Oracle to license their code under the GPL. But I don't think that will happen. As many stated before, i think everybody besides those feeling hurt GPL guys is fine with that Situation. 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 and the legal Situation is not that clear ("derived works" and Linus Statement on AFS anyone?) like the FSF tries to make it look like.

[tegs]

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?

They have a say because the distros you call "Linux" are actually GNU/Linux due to the GNU tools being a requirement for the Linux kernel. Since the kernel is GPL, Linus has to play along with the rules. Sorry.