Originally posted by mjg59
View Post
A quick Google search suggests that the only attorney with an actual published opinion is this guy:
http://www.rtt-law.com/public/files/...te%20paper.pdf
His thinking is somewhat different than private opinions that I have had in that it relies on fair use, but he still concludes ZoL is fine. The ones with whom I have spoken directly took the stronger argument that a Linux port of ZFS is a derived work of OpenSolaris, not Linux.
Joerg Schilling in a comment on the CentOS FAQ names "the lawyers of Harald Welte" as stating that a ZFS port to Linux is fine too:
In contrary, well-known lawyers (e.g. the lawyers of Harald Welte) explained why a combination of a filesystem with the Linux kernel is not problem.
I have heard that the ZFS Linux port is fine first hand from both an attorney at the US DoJ and an attorney at the FSFE, although the one at the FSFE thought that certain forms of advertising that are not used might be able to trigger the derived works clause. I can contact the one at the DoJ while I do not have contact information at the FSFE, but you can contact them for their opinion.
I have heard second hand from members of various organizations that the ZFS port passed their legal review. I know firsthand that it passed the Gentoo licensing team's review, although that was not subject to scrutiny from an actual attorney until the attorney who works at the US DoJ checked it for us on his own time. I will withhold names since some of this was said in private discussions, but I could ask various organizations to publish their legal analysis if I consider that necessary. Whether they do is another matter, but I would be surprised if none honor that request if I were to make it.
So far, I have found zero statements from actual attorneys to the contrary of what I have said, but I have had multiple attorneys confirm that my statements are correct either firsthand or through an intermediary.
Comment