Originally posted by audir8
View Post
This is CDDL Contributor section 2.2
(b) under Patent Claims infringed by the making, using, or selling of Modifications made by that Contributor either alone and/or in combination with its Contributor Version (or portions of such combination), to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and/or otherwise dispose of: (1) Modifications made by that Contributor (or portions thereof); and (2) the combination of Modifications made by that Contributor with its Contributor Version (or portions of such combination).
(d) Notwithstanding Section 2.2(b) above, no patent license is granted: (1) for any code that Contributor has deleted from the Contributor Version; (2) for infringements caused by: (i) third party modifications of Contributor Version, or (ii) the combination of Modifications made by that Contributor with other software (except as part of the Contributor Version) or other devices; or (3) under Patent Claims infringed by Covered Software in the absence of Modifications made by that Contributor
Yes 2.1 point d has the same lethal teeth for the Initial Developer to use against anyone using a CDDL work.
MPL version following
[2.1] Each Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license: (...) under Patent Claims of such Contributor to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, import, and otherwise transfer either its Contributions or its Contributor Version.
Originally posted by audir8
View Post
A part patent grant that CDDL license gives might as well be treated as no patent grant at all because the Initial Developer and Contributor can effectively take back there patents. Lets say Orcale stops providing a ZFS upstream as now legally the Initial Developer due to acquiring sun they can now sue everyone using ZFS using the patents they hold over ZFS. All the contributors can pull the same stunt as well. CDDL has something that kind of looks patent grant buts it a highly conditional patent grant designed in favour of the Initial Developer.
CDDL has "no patent license is granted:" written twice with a method so those with patents can contribute patented code then take it back and then sue you. CDDL is like Fat file system long filenames where Microsoft published the documentation then sued parties over it.
Originally posted by audir8
View Post
ZoL could lose that arguement with upstream ZFS dieing as you don't have solaris any more.
This from 2010 in fact took back most of Sun/Oracle Patent coverage from ZFS.
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is used in three ways
1) is that it over code that the patent license is only for GPL works.
2) developer decided to for personal reasons.
3) code is being deprecated due to other developments with future removal on the cards.
FPU interface function changing to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is the third one. Now how to address this issue you have to be aware what the hell caused the change. Its Preempt_RT
OpenAFS is more complex.
The license of the module of OpenAFS is IBM public license. It contains a proper patent grant so the tort law argument "tort law has to show harm" could hold for IBM public license where it does not hold for CDDL.
Next a lot of the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL has been set by IBM developers due to the patent grant IBM has done on items like RCU where the patent grant to OIN and others is GPL only of course IBM has the patent holder can break these rules because those are their patents and they can give a patent license with their IBM Public License.
Does ZFS of Linux have a massive patent pool of items they have granted to the Linux kernel no so is not a IBM. Can ZFS of Linux provide the extra patent licenses to use some of the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL the answer is no. Does this mean ZFS of Linux developers have to bare the trouble yes and be forced to use more complex work around to patents because they don't legal access to them because they are under the wrong license.
Comment