On Aug 29, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Prakash Surya <me@prakashsurya.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:33:15PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2014, at 4:49 AM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
>> <clopez@igalia.com> wrote:
>>> On 27/08/14 14:33, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>>>> Maybe we could share a RFC of the summary here when we think is ready, in order to double-check our understanding of the license stuff and get more feedback about it.
>>>
>>> On 27/08/14 16:38, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>>> Hi Carlos,
>>>> I've been dealing with ZoL and the GPL/CDDL issues for a number
>>>> of years for the Lustre filesystem. IANAL, but know quite a bit about
>>>> these issues so I'd be happy to help out if I can.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the offer to help.
>>>
>>> Aron has posted our summary about the situation [1]. If you want to comment on it that would be great.
>>
>> In general I think this is a very well written summary of the issues.
>>
>> I think it is a disservice to your argument that you equate CDDL with proprietary binary licenses such as those used for NVidia or Broadcom.
>>
>>
>> I would definitely seek clarification of what part of the "spirit" of the GPL is being violated.
>>
>> I think the most important point is that CDDL is an OSI-approved _open_source_ license, which eliminates IMHO the biggest objection to proprietary binary modules, since the source for ZFS is available for debugging, modification, and redistribution.
>>
>> The CDDL is actually a permissive license and even grants patent indemnification for any patents embodied in the original ZFS code (similar to GPLv3). It is the GPL that restricts distributing with CDDL code and not the reverse (CDDL 3.6 explicitly allows this).
>
> I probably could read the GPL and figure this out, but, in what way does
> the GPL restrict distribution of GPL and CDDL code together? And maybe
> how it specifically relates to this instance, as the ZFS code is
> obviously not a derived work of any GPL project.
You are right, and I forgot to make this important point as I was writing
my first email. It is clear that ZFS is _not_ a derived work of Linux
(originally written for Solaris), and Linus has himself said this in
the past about AFS [1], and the GPL only covers code which is derived:
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not
apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."
and just distributing them together does not change this:
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program)
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring
the other work under the scope of this License."
so if the ZoL module is not distributed as part of the kernel (i.e. in
a separate package) it is no more incompatible with the GPL than any
other piece of software that is available via download or on the same
DVD as others.
[1] http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl_modules.html
> I try and ignore licensing issues as much as possible, but I'm curious.
>
> --
> Cheers, Prakash
>
>>
>> A little-known fact is that the CDDL even permits releasing the executable under a different license from the CDDL (CDDL 3.5). For example, it would be conceivable to distribute the module under the GPL, but that raises the question of what does a GPL license on an executable mean? Would this expose the distributor to e.g. patent license issues because it is no longer covered by the CDDL?
>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://mid.gmane.org/20140829014229.GA9572@aron-laptop
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to zfs-discuss+unsubscribe@zfsonlinux.org.
Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail