> That doesn't make it right.
I see we have a disagreement here. I don't consider copyright infringement
itself to be unethical, largely because I advocate for the abolition of
copyright.
> The point that I was trying to make is that if this isn't a violation, then
proprietary kernel modules aren't either.
You talk bout GPL violation as if it's just a singular thing, but the
question isn't whether someone has violated the GPL by distributing a version
of ZFS that works with Linux. It's whether Canonical is violating the GPL.
Based on what you say here:
> In fact, please take note that they don't ship nvidia.ko because they were
threatened with legal action in the mid-2000s.
It sounds like it's not true at all that Canonical is violating the GPL with
the Nvidia kernel module, because they're not distributing it. Would you say
that's accurate?
I'm not entirely clear on how ZFS is being distributed for Ubuntu, which is
both why I'm skeptical of the claim that they are violating the GPL and why i
am not claiming that they are not. Matthew Garrett unfortunately chose to
only link to a commit in a Git repository, which to me is completely
meaningless.
But if what Canonical is doing with ZFS is not in violation of the GNU GPL,
it doesn't follow that ZFS on Linux itself is not in violation of the GPL,
and it doesn't follow that the Nvidia kernel module is not in violation of
the GPL.
> Proper GPL enforcement isn't about money but solely on achieving
compliance.
Yes, I know this, but you made a statement which suggested to me that you are
concerned about Canonical's actions putting distributors of Ubuntu at risk.
Malicious Linux copyright holders who would sue for the wrong reasons are the
only potential risk to them I can think of.
Let me reiterate my position, in case it isn't clear:
- ZFS on Linux may be a GNU GPL violation. However, it should be noted that
it's not a new one; it's been in development for years. It's also worth
noting that the ZFS on Linux developers disagree:
http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue
- Canonical may be violating the GNU GPL. This depends on whether ZFS on
Linux is in violation of the GPL, and how it's being distributed for Ubuntu.
- Assuming both of the above two points are true, I still think it would be
both a waste of resources and destructive for us to go after it the way we go
after proprietary modifications of GPL programs. We need to focus our efforts
on what actually matters. I'm not convinced that this is something that
matters, because ZFS and ZFS on Linux are not proprietary, just
GPL-incompatible.
- Just because we shouldn't fight Canonical on this doesn't mean we shouldn't
discuss it. But discussions should be in the vain of "this is a bad idea",
not "what you are doing is wrong". Unless you actually think that any
copyright infringement is unethical (i.e. that copyright monopolies are
morally a right that people deserve), in which case I disagree with you.
