Bug#686447: [zfs-discuss] Re: Licence issues and non-issues with ZoL: CDDL and GPL
Any movement on this? Wearing an OpenZFS t-shirt to the GSoC mentor summit, I got a lot of questions about the status of ZoL and licensing issues in particular, and I referred to the unresolved matter because I took Debian to be reasonably meticulous in its consideration of such questions. I fear meticulous and itinerant are not simply at cross purposes at this point in the manner that genuine complexity often demands. If the offered summary position on inclusion is found unsatisfactory, surely it should be possible after 10 weeks to articulate objections and reservations clearly. Cheers, Bayard On 31 August 2014 18:53, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote: On 30/08/14 01:03, Andreas Dilger wrote: On Aug 29, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Prakash Surya m...@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 clo...@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 My understanding is that the part of the GPL that causes concerns is the one related to derived works. By comparing the CDDL with the proprietary licenses of the NVIDIA or Broadcom drivers, I tried to stress the point that this same concern related to derived works, would apply to any of this proprietary drivers. And Debian is already distributing this proprietary drivers in their archives. So it would be a non-sense that ZoL was deemed unsuitable for distribution by Debian, while at the same time Debian continues to distribute this proprietary drivers. You are right that maybe that comparison was not very fortunate. However, it should be kept in mind that the concerns of FTP Masters are not related with the CDDL license itself, but with the combination of GPL and CDDL in the same work. We hold the view that ZFS is not a derived work of the Linux Kernel, so the requirements of the GPL License for derived works would not apply to it, therefore both licenses could be satisfied at the same time when Debian distributes both the Linux Kernel and the ZFS driver (either in
Bug#686447: [zfs-discuss] Re: Licence issues and non-issues with ZoL: CDDL and GPL
On 30/08/14 01:03, Andreas Dilger wrote: On Aug 29, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Prakash Surya m...@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 clo...@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 My understanding is that the part of the GPL that causes concerns is the one related to derived works. By comparing the CDDL with the proprietary licenses of the NVIDIA or Broadcom drivers, I tried to stress the point that this same concern related to derived works, would apply to any of this proprietary drivers. And Debian is already distributing this proprietary drivers in their archives. So it would be a non-sense that ZoL was deemed unsuitable for distribution by Debian, while at the same time Debian continues to distribute this proprietary drivers. You are right that maybe that comparison was not very fortunate. However, it should be kept in mind that the concerns of FTP Masters are not related with the CDDL license itself, but with the combination of GPL and CDDL in the same work. We hold the view that ZFS is not a derived work of the Linux Kernel, so the requirements of the GPL License for derived works would not apply to it, therefore both licenses could be satisfied at the same time when Debian distributes both the Linux Kernel and the ZFS driver (either in source code form, or as a binary loadable kernel module). Regards signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#686447: [zfs-discuss] Re: Licence issues and non-issues with ZoL: CDDL and GPL
On Aug 29, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Prakash Surya m...@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 clo...@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+unsubscr...@zfsonlinux.org. Cheers, Andreas signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Bug#686447: [zfs-discuss] Re: Licence issues and non-issues with ZoL: CDDL and GPL
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 clo...@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. 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, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140829224857.ga22...@home.prakashsurya.com
