[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#651624: is zfs incompatible with the GNU Project ?

On 09.02.2012 13:26, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 09:09:24PM +0100, Paolo Delbene wrote:
>>   Paolo Delbene
>> <id3rfix@gmail.com>  	07 febbraio 2012 02:47
>> A: debian-bsd<debian-bsd@lists.debian.org>
>> Hi,
>> For that i know the GNU Project is based on the GNU General Public
>> License (i suppose you are using GPLv3
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt for the kernel KFreeBSD) and
>> is easy to undestand why:
>> FreeBSD license   (#FreeBSD)
>> This is the original BSD license with the advertising clause and
>> another clause removed. (It is also sometimes called the “2-clause BSD
>> license”.) It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software
>> license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
>> If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
>> the FreeBSD license is a reasonable choice. However, please don't call
>> it a “BSD” or “BSD-style” license, because that is likely to cause
>> confusion which could lead to use of the flawed original BSD license.
> FreeBSD license _is_ a BSD license.  It's just there are three kinds
> of BSD license, and some of FreeBSD code is four-clause.
>> Other Free Software Licenses compatible with the GNU General Public License
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
>> To the same time the license which supports the ZFS is in contrast
>> with the GNU General Public License:
>> Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0 (#CDDL)
>> This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's
>> similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it
>> incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL
>> and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We
>> urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.
> Yes, it's a known problem with GPL, which seems to have been deliberately
> made incompatible with licenses that are not subset of it.  Still, it's
> not a problem, since there is hardly any useful code licensed under GPL
> in the FreeBSD kernel.  There were three sound card drivers, but they
> were cleaned from GPL in 10-CURRENT.

Hi folks,

I was under the impression that the ZFS kernel code in FreeBSD is original work under the 2C-BSDL . At least the headers in
give this impression.
So only the userland code (lib and tools) is under CDDL.

Can someone clarify this?

Thank you!


Reply to: