Re: ZFS in Buster
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 06:43:55PM +0200, Dan wrote:
>
> The ZFS developers proposed the Linux developers to rewrite the whole
> ZFS code and use GPL, but surprisingly the linux developers didn't
> accept. See below:
> https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/8314
I've read the thread, and there are a lot of misunderstandings of many
of the key people involved. There also seems to be a lot of
misunderstanding of what the cause of the "hostility" is coming from
--- it is *not* about "sticking it to Oracle because they chose the
CDDL".
Also, it's not accurate that "linux developers didn't accept". Ryan
sent a query to Linus, and Linus didn't respond. I don't know if he
sent a single message, or whether he retried a couple of times. A
failure to respond is not the same as a rejection. There are plenty
of reasons why Linus might not have responded.
That being said, I don't propose to relitigate that whole thread here.
If people really care, feel free to contact me privately. Or it could
be the case that since Ryan has closed, the ZoL community has already
moved on. Which is also a fine outcome: from most of the upstream
Linux developers that I've talked to; not because they hold any
particular animus against ZoL. It's just that no one feels
particularly interested in giving ZoL any kind of special treatment
--- the hostility around bypassing the requirements of GPL is about
exactly that; not the identity of the company or project trying to do
those particular things.
As Sam has noted, even in the most permissive interpretation, which is
that the Kernel has chosen to draw the lines around GPL compliance in
a different place as the FSF, does not mean that there are *no* lines.
Indeed, there are lines, and when they are violated, there will be
hostility and a refusal to cooperate, and ZoL is getting no better
*or* no worse treatment in that regard.
Bringing this back to Debian, my perception is that while there is not
unanimity about how the moral and legal requirements of the GPL
should be understood within Debian (just as there is also not
unanimity in the kernel community), the center of gravity within
Debian tends to be weighted towards the less permissive
interpretations of the GPL compared to the Linux Kernel community as
whole. Which is to say, if you can't get the Linux Kernel community
folks to agree towards a certain flexibility towards evading the
CDDL/GPL license compatibility problems using techniques like "GPL
condoms", it is even less likely that the Debian community is going to
be willing to be so accomodating.
I also agree with Sam that the only way to know for sure is to have a
GR. So you don't have to take our word for it; but please do
understand it's going to take a lot of community resources to make
that determination. And there might be better uses of that time and
energy.
Regards,
- Ted
Reply to: