Ubuntu Is Planning To Make The ZFS File-System A "Standard" Offering
Collapse
X
-
Patent retaliation clauses are nothing new, e.g. Apache License v2 has that too (even with immediate termination and not 60 days grace period), and that license is GPLv3 compatible.
-
-
Originally posted by chithanh View PostGuest
That is wrong, the CDDL was modelled after the MPL. It also inherited the MPL's GPL incompatibility. Even those parts that the Debian folks didn't like about the CDDL were 1:1 taken from the MPL (which exposed quite some hypocrisy in Debian but I digress).
And to be more precise, it is not the CDDL which prevents Solaris code from entering the Linux kernel. It is the GPL which prevents it.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by ryao View PostA 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.
We co presented at POSSCON, and Bradley Kuhn of the FSF was in the audience. Brad's not a lawyer himself, but he's been directly involved in the vast majority, if not *all*, of the GPL enforcement lawsuits that have ever occurred, and he very vocally and vehemently objected to our conclusions.
IANAL and I'm not qualified to say who had the right of it, Robert or Brad. I do know that there is already work underway to get Oracle to overcome the licensing issues with OTHER cddl codebases being used in unbreakable Linux, and that hopefully that will get used as a spearhead to do the same for ZFS.
At this point everybody, the FSF included, wants ZFS available on Linux. The major difference of opinion is in whether you just say screw it, bring it in and who cares, or whether you fix the license issues more neatly to avoid setting precedents that could potentially weaken the GPL. Brad, and the FSF, clearly favor the latter approach... and honestly, i can't blame them, even though i personally have a vested interest in getting this shit resolved asap.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by Staffan View Post
What utter BS! The CDDL license was intentionally crafted to be incompatible with GPL to prevent Solaris code from ending up in the Linux kernel and you are blaming the GPL/FSF!
1. It's not the CDDL that seeks to subvert all other free and open source software licenses.
2. What you're saying is factually wrong and, to be honest, sounds a lot like yet another silly conspiracy theory out of the mouth of a community that already has way too many nutcases.
3. How would you like it if you went over to borrow sugar from your neighbour, only for him to return three days later, suing you for your house? That's essentially what the GPL works like in the background. It assumes that all code written under it is more important than the code another project under a differing license may depend upon.
This isn't "free", "liberal" or "open source". This is theft, plain and simple.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Staffan
That is wrong, the CDDL was modelled after the MPL. It also inherited the MPL's GPL incompatibility. Even those parts that the Debian folks didn't like about the CDDL were 1:1 taken from the MPL (which exposed quite some hypocrisy in Debian but I digress).
And to be more precise, it is not the CDDL which prevents Solaris code from entering the Linux kernel. It is the GPL which prevents it.Last edited by chithanh; 11 October 2015, 05:00 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by unixfan2001 View PostThat toxic license is, once again, making things more complicated for everyone involved.
Here's hoping someone will eventually beat the FSF/RMS in court, turning their overly complicated (it has more in common with corporate EULAs/TOS' than most liberal open source licenses), lawyer-speak of a license agreement into finely grained dust.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by monraaf View PostRichard,
Is there any hope for an Ubuntu installer that supports a ZFS as root installation? I think this would be huge for increasing ZFS adoption in the community. It could even lead to ZFS being the default filesystem for Linux.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Richard,
Is there any hope for an Ubuntu installer that supports a ZFS as root installation? I think this would be huge for increasing ZFS adoption in the community. It could even lead to ZFS being the default filesystem for Linux.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by FuturePilot View PostYou can still have a separate /boot partition. The only thing the FAT32 EFI partition has on it is the boot loader bits. The kernel and everything else is still in /boot on a native Linux file system.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by mjg59 View PostProbably not unless you're paying them, but I can assure you that there was no misunderstanding of the technical details involved. But the reality is that we don't know whether ZoL is a derivative work or not. No court has ruled on a sufficiently close matter to have confidence in the judgement. We can both have beliefs about the likely outcome, but to assert outright that it's not a derivative work is unjustifiable. There is risk associated with shipping ZoL, just as there is in shipping any other GPL-incompatible module. Based on the legal advice you've received, you may feel that the risk is sufficiently small that you can ignore it. Others may reach different conclusions.
However, if we restricted our activities to those that every attorney on the planet says is definitely okay, nothing would ever be done. Linux itself falls under this category for the somewhat different reason of being potentially covered by software patents held by Microsoft, which is why smart phone manufacturers shipping Android are settling with Microsoft. If people stopped doing things whenever not all attorneys agree that something is okay, SCO would have killed Linux, AT&T would have killed BSD and more generally, F/OSS would likely not exist.Last edited by ryao; 07 October 2015, 09:17 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment: