Hello, I believe that ZFS and it''s concepts is truly revolutionary to the point that I no longer see any OS as modern if it does not have comparable storage functionality. Therefore I think that file system/disk manager with similar qualities should be written for Linux. Does Sun have plans to dual license ZFS as GPL so it can be ported to native Linux? If not, is it legal to write ZFS clone from scratch while maintaining binary compatibility with original? Jeff mentioned in his blog that Sun filled 56 patents on ZFS related technologies. Can anybody from the company provide me with more information about this? If porting ZFS to Linux kernel is not an option and I were to implement different file system with ZFS ideas in mind how can I be safe and not break any Sun patents? P.S. Yes, Solaris is in many ways superior to Linux, but the latter has it''s strong points too. So please, let''s not turn this in Linux vs Solaris flame war. Sincerely yours, Max V. Yudin
Hello Ignatich,
Thursday, April 12, 2007, 12:32:13 AM, you wrote:
I> Hello,
I> I believe that ZFS and it''s concepts is truly revolutionary to
the
I> point that I no longer see any OS as modern if it does not have
I> comparable storage functionality. Therefore I think that file
I> system/disk manager with similar qualities should be written for Linux.
I> Does Sun have plans to dual license ZFS as GPL so it can be ported to
I> native Linux?
I> If not, is it legal to write ZFS clone from scratch while
I> maintaining binary compatibility with original?
I> Jeff mentioned in his blog that Sun filled 56 patents on ZFS related
I> technologies. Can anybody from the company provide me with more
I> information about this?
I> If porting ZFS to Linux kernel is not an option and I were to implement
I> different file system with ZFS ideas in mind how can I be safe and not
I> break any Sun patents?
1. there''s a project to port ZFS to Linux withing FUSE
2. I hope zfs won''t be dual licensed - I''m not a lawyer but
dual
licensing seems to me to provide more problems
Now the idea to have ZFS on different platforms is appealing
(providing 100% compatibility) but on the other hand real competition
is good for market, including open source one.
Technologies like ZFS or DTrace make Solaris more different in a good
way and just for competitiveness it could be actually good if Linux
can''t "just copy" it.
I''m looking closely to GPLv3 but maybe Linux should change
it''s
license to actually provide more freedom and problem would disappear
then. See ZFS being ported to FreeBSD.
I really see no point wasting Open Solaris resources to keep ZFS dual
licensed. And frankly, it would be mostly Sun''s resources. I would
rather like to spend those resources on something more important.
--
Best regards,
Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl
http://milek.blogspot.com
On 4/11/07, Robert Milkowski <rmilkowski at task.gda.pl> wrote:> I''m looking closely to GPLv3 but maybe Linux should change it''s > license to actually provide more freedom and problem would disappear > then. See ZFS being ported to FreeBSD.Agreed. Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? Rayson> > I really see no point wasting Open Solaris resources to keep ZFS dual > licensed. And frankly, it would be mostly Sun''s resources. I would > rather like to spend those resources on something more important. > > -- > Best regards, > Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl > http://milek.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote:> Does Sun have plans to dual license ZFS as GPL so it can be ported to native > Linux?I don''t work for Sun so I can''t speak for them. The last I heard was that Sun was looking at GPLv3, and considering its use for one or more projects, either dual licensed with the CDDL, or on its own. My own personal opinion is that dual licensing should be avoided because it makes things needlessly complicated, and there is also the real danger of license-based forks being introduced.> If not, is it legal to write ZFS clone from scratch while > maintaining binary compatibility with original?The short answer is: seek professional legal council. The longer answer, bearing in mind that IANAL, is that yes, a clean room implementation would be legal. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux > changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the Linux kernel''s license would require the consent of every copyright holder, many of whom may not be able to be tracked down or give their consent. So in practical terms, the license for Linux CAN''T be changed: they''re stuck with it (it being GPLv2). -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
Rich Teer writes:> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: > >> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux >> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? > > I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the > Linux kernel''s license would require the consent of every copyright > holder, many of whom may not be able to be tracked down or give > their consent. So in practical terms, the license for Linux CAN''T > be changed: they''re stuck with it (it being GPLv2). >Exactly! And nobody can force Sun to dual license if they do not want to. But enterprises that use Linux and Linux community in general still need proper storage system, right? And they might still have perfectly valid reasons not to switch to Solaris. If ZFS can''t be ported and writing binary compatible storage system is impossible or impractical then ZFS alternative must and will be designed and implemented sooner or later. Sincerely yours, Max V. Yudin
Robert Milkowski writes:> I''m looking closely to GPLv3 but maybe Linux should change it''s > license to actually provide more freedom and problem would disappear > then. See ZFS being ported to FreeBSD.Will GPLv3 be CDDL compatible? I don''t think so, but I''m no lawyer. Perhaps somebody with more knowledge in these matters can clarify? Sincerely yours, Max V. Yudin
Hello Ignatich, Thursday, April 12, 2007, 1:25:57 AM, you wrote: I> Rich Teer writes:>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: >> >>> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux >>> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? >> >> I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the >> Linux kernel''s license would require the consent of every copyright >> holder, many of whom may not be able to be tracked down or give >> their consent. So in practical terms, the license for Linux CAN''T >> be changed: they''re stuck with it (it being GPLv2). >>I> Exactly! And nobody can force Sun to dual license if they do not want I> to. But enterprises that use Linux and Linux community in general still I> need proper storage system, right? And they might still have perfectly I> valid reasons not to switch to Solaris. If ZFS can''t be ported and I> writing binary compatible storage system is impossible or impractical I> then ZFS alternative must and will be designed and implemented sooner or I> later. And there''s nothing wrong with it - competition is good, even in open source. I''m not sure if and how much resource would dual-licensing of Open Solaris involve, but still I think there''re more important things than assuring Linux gets Solaris technologies when it comes to kernel. Now it makes a lot of sense if higher-level technologies like Gnome, KDE, OO, etc. are easily running on different platforms and more or less we''re there right now. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl http://milek.blogspot.com
On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote:> Rich Teer writes: > >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: >>> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux >>> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? >> I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the >> Linux kernel''s license would require the consent of every copyright >> holder, many of whom may not be able to be tracked down or give >> their consent. So in practical terms, the license for Linux CAN''T >> be changed: they''re stuck with it (it being GPLv2). > > Exactly! And nobody can force Sun to dual license if they do not want > to.I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL licensors (myself included). It seems Sun is internally divided on the GPL. Your CEO and Java division seem quite happy with it.> But enterprises that use Linux and Linux community in general still > need proper storage system, right? And they might still have perfectly > valid reasons not to switch to Solaris. If ZFS can''t be ported and > writing binary compatible storage system is impossible or impractical > then ZFS alternative must and will be designed and implemented > sooner or > later.ZFS has value in and of itself as a differentiator in Solaris, which will drive adoption and satisfaction. Solaris may be the only credible competitor Linux has left, which will keep it honest. :) --T> > Sincerely yours, Max V. Yudin > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:> I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license > as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?Hey, then just don''t *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything else) to GPL. I don''t think a lot of Solaris users ask on the Linux kernel mailing list to relicense Linux kernel components to CDDL so that they can use the features on Solaris. Rayson> > The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The > BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL > licensors (myself included). > > It seems Sun is internally divided on the GPL. Your CEO and Java > division seem quite happy with it. > > > But enterprises that use Linux and Linux community in general still > > need proper storage system, right? And they might still have perfectly > > valid reasons not to switch to Solaris. If ZFS can''t be ported and > > writing binary compatible storage system is impossible or impractical > > then ZFS alternative must and will be designed and implemented > > sooner or > > later. > > ZFS has value in and of itself as a differentiator in Solaris, which > will drive adoption and satisfaction. Solaris may be the only > credible competitor Linux has left, which will keep it honest. :) > > --T > > > > > Sincerely yours, Max V. Yudin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > zfs-discuss mailing list > > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
From: "Toby Thain" <toby at smartgames.ca>> On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote: > >> Rich Teer writes: >> >>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: >>>> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux >>>> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? >>> I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the >>> Linux kernel''s license would require the consent of every copyright >>> holder, many of whom may not be able to be tracked down or give >>> their consent. So in practical terms, the license for Linux CAN''T >>> be changed: they''re stuck with it (it being GPLv2). >> >> Exactly! And nobody can force Sun to dual license if they do not want >> to. > > I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license > as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? > > The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The > BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL > licensors (myself included).GPL for Linux is a double edged sword. Linux has this interface called "netfilter" which I provided input on many years ago. A primary goal of that was to enable other open source projects (such as IPFilter) to work with Linux. If, however, the mere act of compiling IPFilter for Linux forces it to be GPL then it''s not something I ever want to happen and in turn I would withdraw IPFilter''s Linux support and the point of having the API would be somewhat diminished. The problem here is around what the term "derived work" means and what exactly is one. While we all have opinions, to my knowledge it is untested in court. If interoperability with Linux means you have no choice in your licence then the only option seems to be excluding Linux. Darren
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:> I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as > equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?Read what I wrote again, more slowly. Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their choice of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature of the GPL, every piece of software that goes into the Linux kernel must be GPLed, hence if the Linux community wants to change the license the Linux kernel uses, ALL contributors must agree to the change. If 90% of the contributors want to change their code to use the Toby Thain License (TTL) but the remaining 10% want to stick with the GPL, then that 90% must either live without the code owned by the 10% or drop the idea of changing license. The GPL, which the Linux community has embraced, forces them into this position. What I or anyone else thinks of the GPL is moot: it is the license you yourselves have chosen that limits your choices, not us. Which is kind of ironic, because the all-GPL or nothing nature of the GPL is routinely touted as an advantage by the more vociferous GPL advocates!> The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The BSD > license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL licensors > (myself included).And power to you. As for anti-GPL knee jerks; I know two wrongs don''t make a right, but how do you think we feel when Sun and the CDDL are slagged off on Slashdot et al?> It seems Sun is internally divided on the GPL. Your CEO and Java division seem > quite happy with it.As others have said, some licenses are better than others for certain projects; there is no "One True License".> drive adoption and satisfaction. Solaris may be the only credible competitor > Linux has left, which will keep it honest. :)I prefer to think of it the other way round. :-) -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:> Hey, then just don''t *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything > else) to GPL.Amen to that!> I don''t think a lot of Solaris users ask on the Linux kernel mailing > list to relicense Linux kernel components to CDDL so that they can use > the features on Solaris.Indeed. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
On 11/04/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:> On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote: > > Rich Teer writes: > >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: > >>> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux > >>> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? > >> I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the > >> Linux kernel''s license would require the consent of every copyright > >> holder, many of whom may not be able to be tracked down or give > >> their consent. So in practical terms, the license for Linux CAN''T > >> be changed: they''re stuck with it (it being GPLv2). > > > > Exactly! And nobody can force Sun to dual license if they do not want > > to. > > I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license > as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?Indeed, why? So why do people show up at the "community doorstep" asking for a license change instead of respecting the right to keep theirs?> The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The > BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL > licensors (myself included).Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don''t want to give others the same benefit.> It seems Sun is internally divided on the GPL. Your CEO and Java > division seem quite happy with it.Just like any community, there are differences in opinion. Communities are made of individuals. -- "Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:> I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license > as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? > > The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The > BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL > licensors (myself included).There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL. Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux. I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS under GPL in case you use it on Linux. The CDDL however allows you to use it together with _any_ other license. So where is the problem? J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Rich Teer <rich.teer at rite-group.com> wrote:> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > > > I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > > contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as > > equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? > > Read what I wrote again, more slowly. > > Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their choice > of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature of the > GPL, every piece of software that goes into the Linux kernel must be GPLed, > hence if the Linux community wants to change the license the Linux kernel > uses, ALL contributors must agree to the change.Please be careful and reread the GPL.... The GPL does only require you to out something under the GPL if it is a "derived Work" from a GPLd sour or if it contains a sufficient amount (more then allowed by fair use) if GPLd code. This does not seem to be true for a ZFS -> Linux port. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Joerg Schilling wrote:> Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote: > >> I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux >> contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license >> as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? >> >> The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The >> BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL >> licensors (myself included). > > There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL. > > Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux. > I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS under > GPL in case you use it on Linux. The CDDL however allows you to use it together > with _any_ other license. So where is the problem? >Indeed because if it did then it would mean that the binary and closed source graphics drivers available would have had to be GPL as well. If Linux has a well enough defined VFS layer that allows things just to plugin without any modification to the rest of the Linux kernel then there shouldn''t be a problem - or at least there is equivalent to the graphics driver issue. -- Darren J Moffat
Joerg Schilling writes:> There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL. > > Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux. > I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS under > GPL in case you use it on Linux. The CDDL however allows you to use it together > with _any_ other license. So where is the problem?You may have a perfectly valid point. ATI and nVidia both provide non-GPL drivers for Linux. But I don''t think it''s that easy. You can''t port a file system to Linux without using EXPORT_GPL APIs. That means Linux developers view such code as "derived work". I prefer to be safe than sorry. Sincerely yours, Max V. Yudin
Ignatich <ignatich at gmail.com> wrote:> Joerg Schilling writes: > > > There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL. > > > > Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux. > > I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS under > > GPL in case you use it on Linux. The CDDL however allows you to use it together > > with _any_ other license. So where is the problem? > > You may have a perfectly valid point. ATI and nVidia both provide > non-GPL drivers for Linux. But I don''t think it''s that easy. You can''t > port a file system to Linux without using EXPORT_GPL APIs. That means > Linux developers view such code as "derived work". I prefer to be safe > than sorry.Authors/porters from Europe definitely have the right to use small parts of other people''s code as ("wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat") and do not even ask the author for permission as long as the mention him. As long as nobody like to combine the Linux and the ZFS project into one single "work", I see no problems. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
"Shawn Walker" <binarycrusader at gmail.com> wrote:> > The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The > > BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL > > licensors (myself included). > > Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that > BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don''t > want to give others the same benefit.The way I understand the BSD license and the copyrith law, you are not allowed to change the license or add the GPL to BSD licensed code. It is just tolerated by the BSD folks..... J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
From: "Joerg Schilling" <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de>> Ignatich <ignatich at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Joerg Schilling writes: >> >> > There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL. >> > >> > Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux. >> > I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS >> > under >> > GPL in case you use it on Linux. The CDDL however allows you to use it >> > together >> > with _any_ other license. So where is the problem? >> >> You may have a perfectly valid point. ATI and nVidia both provide >> non-GPL drivers for Linux. But I don''t think it''s that easy. You can''t >> port a file system to Linux without using EXPORT_GPL APIs. That means >> Linux developers view such code as "derived work". I prefer to be safe >> than sorry. > > Authors/porters from Europe definitely have the right to use small parts > of > other people''s code as ("wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat") and do not even > ask > the author for permission as long as the mention him. > > As long as nobody like to combine the Linux and the ZFS project into one > single > "work", I see no problems.You see no problems, I see no problems but various Linux people do, including Linus. But as all we have is a collection of different viewpoints and nothing has been "decided" in a court of law, the exact meaning is open to interpretation/discussion. What stands in ZFS''s favour is that it has not been create _for_ Linux, rather that using the various header files is a way of _also_ making it available for Linux. Search the internet for discussions of the porting of AFS to Linux (I think it was AFS where a similar discussion was held) and the prevailing opinion - and if I recall correctly, this includes Linus - seems to suggest that using Linux header files to make something _also_ available for Linux is ok and doesn''t require that the rest of the code be GPL''d. What they want to do is use this as a weapon against those who release binary driver blobs _for_ Linux in an effort to get people to open up their driver details. IOW, if you created a filesystem with CDDL/BSD licence _for_ Linux and used their equivalent of the VFS layer, a *lot* of people would stand up and say your work should also be GPL''d, whether you like it or not. Darren
Darren <Darren.Reed at Sun.COM> wrote> What stands in ZFS''s favour is that it has not been create _for_ Linux, > rather that using the various header files is a way of _also_ making it > available for Linux. Search the internet for discussions of the porting > of AFS to Linux (I think it was AFS where a similar discussion was held) > and the prevailing opinion - and if I recall correctly, this includes > Linus - seems to suggest that using Linux header files to make something > _also_ available for Linux is ok and doesn''t require that the rest of > the code be GPL''d.So assuming that you simply supply the zfs kernel module independently and CDDL licensed, there is little that the Linux kernel developers could do about it. Would never be part of the kernel distribution, but is that such a high price to pay for zfs on linux? Are there any license problems with this approach? paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070412/a1cf26f8/attachment.html>
Darren Reed <Darren.Reed at Sun.COM> wrote:> You see no problems, I see no problems but various Linux people do, > including Linus. But as all we have is a collection of different viewpoints > and nothing has been "decided" in a court of law, the exact meaning is > open to interpretation/discussion.This is the main problem I see with the GPL. It is not written well enough to make it nonambiguous.> What stands in ZFS''s favour is that it has not been create _for_ Linux, > rather that using the various header files is a way of _also_ making it > available for Linux. Search the internet for discussions of the porting > of AFS to Linux (I think it was AFS where a similar discussion was held) > and the prevailing opinion - and if I recall correctly, this includes > Linus - seems to suggest that using Linux header files to make something > _also_ available for Linux is ok and doesn''t require that the rest of > the code be GPL''d.This looks to be the right interpretation from my viewpoint.> IOW, if you created a filesystem with CDDL/BSD licence _for_ Linux and > used their equivalent of the VFS layer, a *lot* of people would stand up > and say your work should also be GPL''d, whether you like it or not.This seems to be a result of the ambiguous GPL text. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:> > On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote: > > > Rich Teer writes: > > > >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: > >>> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux > >>> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? > >> I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the > >> Linux kernel''s license would require the consent of every copyright > >> holder, many of whom may not be able to be tracked down or give > >> their consent. So in practical terms, the license for Linux CAN''T > >> be changed: they''re stuck with it (it being GPLv2). > > > > Exactly! And nobody can force Sun to dual license if they do not want > > to. > > I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license > as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? > > The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. TheI did''nt see an "anti-GPL kneejerk" on this list. I saw a well reasoned and respectful discussion take place. I guess "astonish"ment is in the eye of the beholder!> BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL > licensors (myself included). > > It seems Sun is internally divided on the GPL. Your CEO and Java > division seem quite happy with it. > > > But enterprises that use Linux and Linux community in general still > > need proper storage system, right? And they might still have perfectly > > valid reasons not to switch to Solaris. If ZFS can''t be ported and > > writing binary compatible storage system is impossible or impractical > > then ZFS alternative must and will be designed and implemented > > sooner or > > later. > > ZFS has value in and of itself as a differentiator in Solaris, which > will drive adoption and satisfaction. Solaris may be the only > credible competitor Linux has left, which will keep it honest. :) > > --T > > > > > Sincerely yours, Max V. Yudin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > zfs-discuss mailing list > > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 to Mar 2007
On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:> On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote: >> I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux >> contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license >> as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? > > Hey, then just don''t *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything > else) to GPL.I never would. But it would be horrifying to imagine it relicensed to BSD. (Hello, Microsoft, you just got yourself a competitive filesystem.)> > I don''t think a lot of Solaris users ask on the Linux kernel mailing > list to relicense Linux kernel components to CDDL so that they can use > the features on Solaris.Except those perennials who find it un-hypocritical to ask, "Why not Linux changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??" --T> > Rayson > > > > > >> >> The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The >> BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL >> licensors (myself included). >> >> It seems Sun is internally divided on the GPL. Your CEO and Java >> division seem quite happy with it. >> >> > But enterprises that use Linux and Linux community in general still >> > need proper storage system, right? And they might still have >> perfectly >> > valid reasons not to switch to Solaris. If ZFS can''t be ported and >> > writing binary compatible storage system is impossible or >> impractical >> > then ZFS alternative must and will be designed and implemented >> > sooner or >> > later. >> >> ZFS has value in and of itself as a differentiator in Solaris, which >> will drive adoption and satisfaction. Solaris may be the only >> credible competitor Linux has left, which will keep it honest. :) >> >> --T >> >> > >> > Sincerely yours, Max V. Yudin >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > zfs-discuss mailing list >> > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zfs-discuss mailing list >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:01 AM, Rich Teer wrote:> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > >> I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux >> contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of >> license as >> equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? > > Read what I wrote again, more slowly. > > Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their > choice > of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature > of the > GPL,Is it worth reading the rest of your post, if it starts with silliness like that? --T
On 12-Apr-07, at 8:34 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:> Ignatich <ignatich at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Joerg Schilling writes: >> >>> There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL. >>> >>> Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux. >>> I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to >>> publish ZFS under >>> GPL in case you use it on Linux. The CDDL however allows you to >>> use it together >>> with _any_ other license. So where is the problem? >> >> You may have a perfectly valid point. ATI and nVidia both provide >> non-GPL drivers for Linux. But I don''t think it''s that easy. You >> can''t >> port a file system to Linux without using EXPORT_GPL APIs. That means >> Linux developers view such code as "derived work". I prefer to be >> safe >> than sorry. > > Authors/porters from Europe definitely have the right to use small > parts of > other people''s code as ("wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat") and do not > even ask > the author for permission as long as the mention him. > > As long as nobody like to combine the Linux and the ZFS project > into one single > "work", I see no problems.Yes, I think this principle is what permits ZFS/FUSE. --T (who INAL).> > > J?rg > > -- > EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling > D-13353 Berlin > js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) > schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http:// > schily.blogspot.com/ > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/ > pub/schily > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:> ... > > Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that > BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don''t > want to give others the same benefit.That''s a pointless remark. Why? BSD licensors choose that license for its specific properties: The WANT their code to have the freedoms and conditions that license imposes. If they didn''t, they''d use another license. GPL licensors choose that license for its specific properties: The WANT their code to have the freedoms and conditions that license imposes. If they didn''t, they''d use another license. CDDL licensors choose that license for its specific properties: The WANT their code to have the freedoms and conditions that license imposes. If they didn''t, they''d use another license. Now, all we have to do is respect each other. End of problem. --T
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:> >Hey, then just don''t *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything > >else) to GPL. > > I never would. But it would be horrifying to imagine it relicensed to > BSD. (Hello, Microsoft, you just got yourself a competitive filesystem.)There''s nothing today preventing Microsoft (or Apple) from sticking ZFS into their OS. They''d just to have to release the (minimal) diffs to ZFS-specific files. Adam -- Adam Leventhal, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/ahl
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:> > Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their choice > > of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature of the > > GPL, > > Is it worth reading the rest of your post, if it starts with silliness like > that?Do you mean to imply that the GPL is NOT viral in nature? -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:> > On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote: > > >On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote: > >>I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > >>contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license > >>as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? > > > >Hey, then just don''t *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything > >else) to GPL. > > I never would. But it would be horrifying to imagine it relicensed to > BSD. (Hello, Microsoft, you just got yourself a competitive filesystem.)Well, anyone can port ZFS to Windows if they like. For MS to do it MS would have to abide by the patent peace provision of the CDDL. The same applies to Linux, except that many people believe that the GPL would make such a port a derivative (because it''d link with the GPLed linux kernel) of GPLed code and that CDDL and GPL are incompatible, meaning that you couldn''t distribute Linux w/ ZFS. The "linking derives" argument is controversial and not tested in court. Nico --
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:07:33PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:> Now, all we have to do is respect each other. End of problem.I think this sub-thread started with a comment by you about someone else''s "kneejerk" "anti-GPL" comments. I don''t recall any such comments in this thread. I think you might have been referring comments that Sun should not dual-license ZFS.
On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote:> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote: >> >> On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote: >> >> > On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote: >> >> I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux >> >> contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license >> >> as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? >> > >> > Hey, then just don''t *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything >> > else) to GPL. >> >> I never would. But it would be horrifying to imagine it relicensed to >> BSD. (Hello, Microsoft, you just got yourself a competitive filesystem.) > > Well, anyone can port ZFS to Windows if they like. For MS to do it MS > would have to abide by the patent peace provision of the CDDL. > > The same applies to Linux, except that many people believe that the GPL > would make such a port a derivative (because it''d link with the GPLed > linux kernel) of GPLed code and that CDDL and GPL are incompatible, > meaning that you couldn''t distribute Linux w/ ZFS. The "linking > derives" argument is controversial and not tested in court.well since this thread has devolved :-) i''ll just say i find that to be a specious argument. like every CS problem, one can always solve the linking problem with another level of abstraction. which (IMHO) renders the "linking derives" argument invalid. -frank
On 12/04/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:> > On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > ... > > > > Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that > > BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don''t > > want to give others the same benefit. > > That''s a pointless remark. Why?No, it isn''t pointless. You just don''t agree with it :)> Now, all we have to do is respect each other. End of problem.What problem? I never saw any problem. -- "Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
On 12/04/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:> > On 12-Apr-07, at 1:01 AM, Rich Teer wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > > > >> I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > >> contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of > >> license as > >> equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? > > > > Read what I wrote again, more slowly. > > > > Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their > > choice > > of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature > > of the > > GPL, > > Is it worth reading the rest of your post, if it starts with > silliness like that?The truth is never silly. -- "Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:51:06PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:> On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams > <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote: > >The same applies to Linux, except that many people believe that the GPL > >would make such a port a derivative (because it''d link with the GPLed > >linux kernel) of GPLed code and that CDDL and GPL are incompatible, > >meaning that you couldn''t distribute Linux w/ ZFS. The "linking > >derives" argument is controversial and not tested in court. > > well since this thread has devolved :-) i''ll just say i find that to be a > specious argument. like every CS problem, one can always solve the linking > problem with another level of abstraction. which (IMHO) renders the > "linking derives" argument invalid.Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on OpenSolaris discuss lists seems to devolve into a license discussion. I have seen mailing list posts (I''d have to search again) that indicate [that some believe] that even dynamic linking via dlopen() qualifies as making a derivative. If true that would mean that one could not distribute an OpenSolaris distribution containing a GPLed PAM module. Or perhaps, because in that case the header files needed to make the linking possible are not GPLed the linking-makes-derivatives argument would not apply. Nico --
On Thu, April 12, 2007 4:49 pm, Nicolas Williams wrote:> Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on > OpenSolaris discuss lists seems to devolve > into a license discussion.i think it''s a Good Thing because it''s important to the community. talking about something like this is the process that communities go through to better understand their shared values. in time the discussion will die down. i suspect what wearies most folks is the reactionary commentary that some people bring to the discussion. hypothetically, if the linux kernel didn''t exist, who here would support opensolaris being gpl''d (assume gplv3, *not* dual-licensed, and no existing CDDL dependencies)? if you wouldn''t support it what are the top two reasons you think the gpl would be problematic for opensolaris (same above assumptions apply)? peace, david
On 12-Apr-07, at 7:21 PM, Rich Teer wrote:> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > >>> Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their >>> choice >>> of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature >>> of the >>> GPL, >> >> Is it worth reading the rest of your post, if it starts with >> silliness like >> that? > > Do you mean to imply that the GPL is NOT viral in nature?It''s a neat piece of slander, but inconveniently, nobody has made it stick. Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely nothing to say about what you do with YOUR code. The GPL, which as you know is built on copyright, is a purely voluntary license - revealing the analogy to be worthless and the claim pure FUD. Viruses - whether biological or Windows-borne - are not something you generally get to refuse. --Toby> > -- > Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member > > CEO, > My Online Home Inventory > > Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 > URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich > http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
On 12-Apr-07, at 8:49 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:51:06PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote: >> On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams >> <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote: >>> The same applies to Linux, except that many people believe that >>> the GPL >>> would make such a port a derivative (because it''d link with the >>> GPLed >>> linux kernel) of GPLed code and that CDDL and GPL are incompatible, >>> meaning that you couldn''t distribute Linux w/ ZFS. The "linking >>> derives" argument is controversial and not tested in court. >> >> well since this thread has devolved :-) i''ll just say i find that >> to be a >> specious argument. like every CS problem, one can always solve >> the linking >> problem with another level of abstraction. which (IMHO) renders the >> "linking derives" argument invalid. > > Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on OpenSolaris discuss lists > seems to devolve into a license discussion. > > I have seen mailing list posts (I''d have to search again) that > indicate > [that some believe] that even dynamic linking via dlopen() > qualifies as > making a derivative.The LGPL exists to clarify this issue. --Toby> > If true that would mean that one could not distribute an OpenSolaris > distribution containing a GPLed PAM module. Or perhaps, because in > that > case the header files needed to make the linking possible are not > GPLed > the linking-makes-derivatives argument would not apply. > > Nico > -- > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 12-Apr-07, at 8:31 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:> On 12/04/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote: >> >> On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: >> >> > ... >> > >> > Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact >> that >> > BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet >> don''t >> > want to give others the same benefit. >> >> That''s a pointless remark. Why? > > No, it isn''t pointless. You just don''t agree with it :)And evidently you didn''t read/understand/agree with my refutation. We''re even.> >> Now, all we have to do is respect each other. End of problem. > > What problem? I never saw any problem. > > -- > "Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright > > Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst > binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
Paul <pfisher at alertlogic.net> wrote> So assuming that you simply supply the zfs kernel module independently and > CDDL licensed, there is little that the Linux kernel developers could do > about it. Would never be part of the kernel distribution, but is that > such a high price to pay for zfs on linux? > > Are there any license problems with this approach?Since the rest of this thread has fallen down on the failing of the respective licenses, I''ll reply to my own post and ask a very specific question. Is there any reason that the CDDL dictates, or that Sun would object, to zfs being made available as an independently distributed Linux kernel module? In other words, if I made an Nvidia-like distribution available, would that be OK from the OpenSolaris side? paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070412/6e709129/attachment.html>
Paul Fisher wrote:> Paul <pfisher at alertlogic.net> wrote > > So assuming that you simply supply the zfs kernel module > independently and > > CDDL licensed, there is little that the Linux kernel developers could do > > about it. Would never be part of the kernel distribution, but is that > > such a high price to pay for zfs on linux? > > > > Are there any license problems with this approach? > > Since the rest of this thread has fallen down on the failing of the > respective licenses, I''ll reply to my own post and ask a very specific > question. > > Is there any reason that the CDDL dictates, or that Sun would object, > to zfs being made available as an independently distributed Linux kernel > module? In other words, if I made an Nvidia-like distribution available, > would that be OK from the OpenSolaris side? >Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you have to do is make your changes to CDDL''d files available. What you do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance, build a ZFS for Linux) is up to you. From the FAQ: (http://opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/) Q: Can code licensed under the CDDL be combined with code licensed under other open source licenses? A: CDDL is file-based. That means files licensed under the CDDL can be combined with files licensed under other licenses, whether open source or proprietary. However, other licenses may have different restrictions which may prevent such combination; it is your responsibility to read and recognize such restrictions. Q: If I use code licensed under the CDDL in my proprietary product, will I have to share my source code? A: Yes, for any source files that are licensed under the CDDL and any modifications you make. However, you don''t need to share the source for your proprietary source files. - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:> Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of Microsoft > - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY to MY code > as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely nothing to say > about what you do with YOUR code.PLease correct me if I''m wrong: my understanding is that the granularity of the GPL is the "project"; all source files that make up that project must be GPLed. Is that correct? I believe so, and the FSF''s GPL FAQ would seem to agree with me*: Q: If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module? A: The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL. It says right there that if I want to add a new module (file/whatever) to a GPLed program, I MUST USE THE GPL FOR MY CODE. I have no choice in this matter: the GPL has "spread" to my module, and can therefore be described as being viral in nature. QED. * See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense> The GPL, which as you know is built on copyright, is a purely voluntary > license - revealing the analogy to be worthless and the claim pure FUD.But it''s not a voluntary license. If I want to contribute to a GPLed project, my code must also be GPLed; I have no say in the matter. Contrast this to the CDDL: provided the license I choose for my files is compatible with the CDDL, I can license my code however I like. Unlike the GPL, my code does NOT have to CDDLed, and therefore the CDDL cannot be said to be viral in nature.> Viruses - whether biological or Windows-borne - are not something you > generally get to refuse.See above. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
> Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on OpenSolaris discuss lists > seems to devolve into a license discussion.:0 B: * GPL /dev/null
Bart Smaalders writes:> Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you > have to do is make your changes to CDDL''d files available. What you > do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance, > build a ZFS for Linux) is up to you.The problem is not with CDDL, GPL is the problem. ATI and nVidia do provide binary modules with GPL "adapters", but I don''t think legality of this approach was proven in court. I see no parties interested in proving that it is not legal (Intel perhaps?), but Sun is another story. They are not interested in ZFS port for Linux, because Solaris and Linux are real competitors, and if winds change may decide to take legal action. Also, such port can never be included in mainline for obvious reasons and I really want to see storage system such as ZFS as "default" for Linux in future. To sum all of this I see a number of possible solutions for this situation: 1. Sun dual licenses ZFS as GPLv2 and thus gives green light for ZFS-Linux port. Personally I doubt that this will happen. 2. Linux changes it''s license. The chance is near zero. 3. US and EU courts clearly state that it is legal to use non-GPL kernel modules in Linux. 4. GPL ZFS reimplementation project is started. I prefer that way until 1), 2) or 3) happen. I know Sun opened most if not all ZFS related patents for OpenSolaris community. So I repeat questions I asked in my first mail: 1. Are those patents limited to CDDL/OpenSolaris code or can by used in GPL/Linux too? 2. If GPL code can''t use those patented algorithms, will you please provide list of ZFS-related patents? RAID-Z and LZJB are most obvious technologies which may be patent protected. Sincerely yours, Max V. Yudin
On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:> Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of > Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL > applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it > has absolutely nothing to say about what you do with YOUR code.Until my code comes into contact with yours - that''s the ''viral'' bit. (Yes, I can aviod all contact with GPL code, just as I can stay away from someone with the flu, but it doesn''t mean they don''t have the flu). And it''s not only Microsoft who have a problem with it - it''s anyone who wants to keep their changes private for some reason. I''ve read embedded linux technical books that had to spend 2 chapters explaining how to tiptoe around the GPL - life is too short for that sort of rubbish. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/
On April 13, 2007 10:48:38 AM +0400 Ignatich <ignatich at gmail.com> wrote:> I know Sun opened most if not all ZFS related patents for OpenSolaris > community. So I repeat questions I asked in my first mail: > > 1. Are those patents limited to CDDL/OpenSolaris code or can by used in > GPL/Linux too? > > 2. If GPL code can''t use those patented algorithms, will you please > provide list of ZFS-related patents? RAID-Z and LZJB are most obvious > technologies which may be patent protected.If you want answers to those questions that you can actually use safely, you really should have your lawyers contact Sun''s lawyers. -frank
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > >> Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies >> of Microsoft >> - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY >> to MY code >> as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely >> nothing to say >> about what you do with YOUR code. > > PLease correct me if I''m wrong: my understanding is that the > granularity > of the GPL is the "project"; all source files that make up that > project > must be GPLed. Is that correct? I believe so, and the FSF''s GPL FAQ > would seem to agree with me*: > > Q: If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the > GPL as the > license for my module? > > A: The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released > under the GPL. > So your module has to be available for use under the GPL. > > It says right there that if I want to add a new module (file/ > whatever) to > a GPLed program, I MUST USE THE GPL FOR MY CODE. I have no choice > in this > matter: the GPL has "spread" to my module, and can therefore be > described > as being viral in nature. QED.IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion. You can always *not use* MY code. The GPL applies, ab initio, only to MY code.> > * See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl- > faq.html#GPLModuleLicense > >> The GPL, which as you know is built on copyright, is a purely >> voluntary >> license - revealing the analogy to be worthless and the claim pure >> FUD. > > But it''s not a voluntary license. If I want to contribute to a > GPLed project,The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that spurred the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to customise it a bit". In this situation it''s quite reasonable that you would abide by the conditions I''ve chosen for the stuff you''re using. If you have a chunk of your work that you wish to disinterestedly check into somebody''s GPL project, then it may seem as if the license is an imposition. But it''s not: You can still publish it elsewhere under any license.> my code must also be GPLed; I have no say in the matter. Contrast > this to > the CDDL: provided the license I choose for my files is compatible > with the > CDDL, I can license my code however I like. Unlike the GPL, my > code does > NOT have to CDDLed, and therefore the CDDL cannot be said to be > viral in > nature.''Viral'' is just not the right term. Rather than spreading it (as I say, associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest campaigns), it seems you should just admit that you personally don''t happen to like this clause of the GPL (which is designed to protect users from familiar catastrophes). But many do, or they wouldn''t deliberately choose this license. But this is OT enough by now. --Toby> >> Viruses - whether biological or Windows-borne - are not something you >> generally get to refuse. > > See above. > > -- > Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member > > CEO, > My Online Home Inventory > > Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 > URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich > http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote:> Bart Smaalders writes: > > > Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you > > have to do is make your changes to CDDL''d files available. What you > > do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance, > > build a ZFS for Linux) is up to you. > > The problem is not with CDDL, GPL is the problem. ATI and nVidia do > provide binary modules with GPL "adapters", but I don''t think legality > of this approach was proven in court. I see no parties interested in > proving that it is not legal (Intel perhaps?), but Sun is another story. > They are not interested in ZFS port for Linux, because Solaris and Linux > are real competitors, and if winds change may decide to take legal > action. Also, such port can never be included in mainline for obvious > reasons and I really want to see storage system such as ZFS as "default" > for Linux in future. To sum all of this I see a number of possible > solutions for this situation: > > 1. Sun dual licenses ZFS as GPLv2 and thus gives green light for > ZFS-Linux port. Personally I doubt that this will happen. > > 2. Linux changes it''s license. The chance is near zero. > > 3. US and EU courts clearly state that it is legal to use non-GPL kernel > modules in Linux. > > 4. GPL ZFS reimplementation project is started. I prefer that way until > 1), 2) or 3) happen. > > I know Sun opened most if not all ZFS related patents for OpenSolaris > community. So I repeat questions I asked in my first mail: > > 1. Are those patents limited to CDDL/OpenSolaris code or can by used in > GPL/Linux too?The patent grant is via the (legal) use of the CDDL license. Suns patent grant has nothing to do with any other license.> 2. If GPL code can''t use those patented algorithms, will you please > provide list of ZFS-related patents? RAID-Z and LZJB are most obvious > technologies which may be patent protected.Thats an issue for you to deal with. I''d recommend that you retain qualified legal council and take their advice. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 to Mar 2007
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:> > On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > > > >> Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies > >> of Microsoft > >> - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY > >> to MY code > >> as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely > >> nothing to say > >> about what you do with YOUR code. > > > > PLease correct me if I''m wrong: my understanding is that the > > granularity > > of the GPL is the "project"; all source files that make up that > > project > > must be GPLed. Is that correct? I believe so, and the FSF''s GPL FAQ > > would seem to agree with me*: > > > > Q: If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the > > GPL as the > > license for my module? > > > > A: The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released > > under the GPL. > > So your module has to be available for use under the GPL. > > > > It says right there that if I want to add a new module (file/ > > whatever) to > > a GPLed program, I MUST USE THE GPL FOR MY CODE. I have no choice > > in this > > matter: the GPL has "spread" to my module, and can therefore be > > described > > as being viral in nature. QED. > > IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.No Toby - you have it wrong. GPLv2 is viral in nature and designed by its creators to be viral.> You can always *not use* MY code. The GPL applies, ab initio, only to > MY code. > > > > > * See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl- > > faq.html#GPLModuleLicense > > > >> The GPL, which as you know is built on copyright, is a purely > >> voluntary > >> license - revealing the analogy to be worthless and the claim pure > >> FUD. > > > > But it''s not a voluntary license. If I want to contribute to a > > GPLed project, > > The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that > spurred the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to > customise it a bit". In this situation it''s quite reasonable that you > would abide by the conditions I''ve chosen for the stuff you''re using.No .. GPLv2 is designed to force someone who wishes to ship a product in binary form to publish the source code for it. Of if someone wishes to keep one or more modules of *their* code secret, because it provides them with a commercial advantage that they don''t wish to share with their competition, GPLv2 forces them to opensource the entire work. It''s viral in nature, because it "infects" everything it touches - regardless of the developers/owners intentions.> If you have a chunk of your work that you wish to disinterestedly > check into somebody''s GPL project, then it may seem as if the license > is an imposition. But it''s not: You can still publish it elsewhere > under any license. > > > > my code must also be GPLed; I have no say in the matter. Contrast > > this to > > the CDDL: provided the license I choose for my files is compatible > > with the > > CDDL, I can license my code however I like. Unlike the GPL, my > > code does > > NOT have to CDDLed, and therefore the CDDL cannot be said to be > > viral in > > nature. > > ''Viral'' is just not the right term. Rather than spreading it (as I > say, associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest > campaigns), it seems you should just admit that you personally don''t > happen to like this clause of the GPL (which is designed to protect > users from familiar catastrophes). But many do, or they wouldn''t > deliberately choose this license. > > But this is OT enough by now.Agreed. Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 to Mar 2007
On 13-Apr-07, at 9:51 AM, Al Hopper wrote:> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > >> >> On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: >>> >>>> Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies >>>> of Microsoft >>>> - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY >>>> to MY code >>>> as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely >>>> nothing to say >>>> about what you do with YOUR code. >>> >>> PLease correct me if I''m wrong: my understanding is that the >>> granularity >>> of the GPL is the "project"; all source files that make up that >>> project >>> must be GPLed. Is that correct? I believe so, and the FSF''s GPL >>> FAQ >>> would seem to agree with me*: >>> >>> Q: If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the >>> GPL as the >>> license for my module? >>> >>> A: The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released >>> under the GPL. >>> So your module has to be available for use under the GPL. >>> >>> It says right there that if I want to add a new module (file/ >>> whatever) to >>> a GPLed program, I MUST USE THE GPL FOR MY CODE. I have no choice >>> in this >>> matter: the GPL has "spread" to my module, and can therefore be >>> described >>> as being viral in nature. QED. >> >> IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion. > > No Toby - you have it wrong. GPLv2 is viral in nature and designed > by its > creators to be viral."You keep using that word..."> >> You can always *not use* MY code. The GPL applies, ab initio, only to >> MY code. >> >>> >>> * See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl- >>> faq.html#GPLModuleLicense >>> >>>> The GPL, which as you know is built on copyright, is a purely >>>> voluntary >>>> license - revealing the analogy to be worthless and the claim pure >>>> FUD. >>> >>> But it''s not a voluntary license. If I want to contribute to a >>> GPLed project, >> >> The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that >> spurred the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to >> customise it a bit". In this situation it''s quite reasonable that you >> would abide by the conditions I''ve chosen for the stuff you''re using. > > No .. GPLv2 is designed to force someone who wishes to ship a > product in > binary form to publish the source code for it.It forces someone who wishes to ship MY (licensor''s) product in binary form to give their users the same rights they had. It does not force anyone to do anything with THEIR product. This is what you ''viral'' people keep missing.> Of if someone wishes to > keep one or more modules of *their* code secret, because it > provides them > with a commercial advantage that they don''t wish to share with their > competition, GPLv2 forces them to opensource the entire work. It''s > viral > in nature, because it "infects" everything it touches - regardless > of the > developers/owners intentions. > >> ... >> >> But this is OT enough by now. > > Agreed. > > Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com > Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT > OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 > OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 to Mar 2007
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote:> Bart Smaalders writes: > >> Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you >> have to do is make your changes to CDDL''d files available. What you >> do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance, >> build a ZFS for Linux) is up to you. > > The problem is not with CDDL, GPL is the problem. ATI and nVidia do provide^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> To sum all of this I see a number of possible solutions for this situation:[ ... ] N. Fix the GPL, to enable codesharing with opensource code of other licenses. (you said above you recognized the problem - so why not fix the problem ?) [ ... ]> 4. GPL ZFS reimplementation project is started. I prefer that way until 1), > 2) or 3) happen.Reminds me of "Project Harmony". One should try it. Qt got dual-licensed in the end. Whether that was due to Harmony "success" or just a business decision by Trolltech, who knows, but then there''s precedence that seems to indicate such an approach may trigger the owner to license as GPL what used to be non-GPL code.> > I know Sun opened most if not all ZFS related patents for OpenSolaris > community. So I repeat questions I asked in my first mail: > > 1. Are those patents limited to CDDL/OpenSolaris code or can by used in > GPL/Linux too? > > 2. If GPL code can''t use those patented algorithms, will you please provide > list of ZFS-related patents? RAID-Z and LZJB are most obvious technologies > which may be patent protected.These days, the situation with patents in computing is so bad that as a software writer, you essentially have no choice but "wait and see". To have even a fairly trivial software project proactively checked against potential patent violations would add prohibitive legal costs that no independent software writer could shell out. And just because a piece of software is under GPL doesn''t mean it cannot violate a patent, and/or that you''d be free to re-use that patented technology, embodied in this sourcecode, in a completely different project. Licensing the patent and licensing the code are two different things, and not all opensource licenses "cover your *ss" wrt. to patents. (but this is really getting off-topic now) FrankH.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:> IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.And I disagree. So we''ll have to agree to disagree.> The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that spurred > the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to customise it a bit". In > this situation it''s quite reasonable that you would abide by the conditions > I''ve chosen for the stuff you''re using.If I want to customise some of your code, I agree that it''s reasonable for me to abide by whatever license you chose. But if I want to add something completely new (say, a new module for emacs), the code for which lives in new and separate files from your code, why should you be able to dictate to me what license I use? Your answer will no doubt be "no one is forcing you to add that module to my program", and you''d be correct. But then we all potentially suffer because we can''t use my new functionality. All the above is, of course, hypothetical, becuase there''s no way I''d put myself in that situation in the first place. I think it''s wrong for me to dictate license terms to other people. When I publish bodies of work, I want people who change my code to make their changes publically available, so that the community as a whole can be enriched. But if someone else wants to add functionality (in the form of new files), I object to the notion that I can dictate to them the terms under which they license their code. In short: if you modify MY code, you must abide by my choice of license. If you contribute new files to my program, they YOU get to dictate the license (provided, of course, that your license allows combination with mine).> ''Viral'' is just not the right term. Rather than spreading it (as I say,What, prey tell, would be your term for something that spreads to without choice?> associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest campaigns), it seems > you should just admit that you personally don''t happen to like this clause ofI personally don''t like this clause of the GPL. But the fact that it has been "associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest campaigns" doesn''t make it (the word viral) an inaccurate description.> the GPL (which is designed to protect users from familiar catastrophes). But > many do, or they wouldn''t deliberately choose this license.No, the GPL was written to further the FSF''s cause. And I submit that many of the people who chose the GPL for their code don''t really know why they''re doing so, apart from the fact that it''s a well-known open source license, and "everyone else does it". -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
On 13-Apr-07, at 4:22 AM, Dick Davies wrote:> On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote: > >> Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of >> Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL >> applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it >> has absolutely nothing to say about what you do with YOUR code. > > Until my code comes into contact with yours - that''s the ''viral'' bit. > (Yes, I can aviod all contact with GPL code, just as I can stay > away from > someone with the flu, but it doesn''t mean they don''t have the flu). > > And it''s not only Microsoft who have a problem with it - it''s > anyone who > wants to keep their changes private for some reason.This is by design. You can always dual license like MySQL, Sleepycat, and a thousand others do. --T> > I''ve read embedded linux technical books that had to spend 2 > chapters explaining how to tiptoe around the GPL - life is too short > for that sort of rubbish. > > > -- > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns > http://number9.hellooperator.net/
Can we please get this licensing debate OFF zfs-discuss. The thread has long since lost any relevance to ZFS on Linux or even ZFS in general. It instead has become yet another debate by non legally trained people on their interpretations of one license over another. -- Darren J Moffat
On 13-Apr-07, at 11:39 AM, Rich Teer wrote:> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > >> IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion. > > And I disagree. So we''ll have to agree to disagree. > >> The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one >> that spurred >> the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to customise it >> a bit". In >> this situation it''s quite reasonable that you would abide by the >> conditions >> I''ve chosen for the stuff you''re using. > > If I want to customise some of your code, I agree that it''s > reasonable for > me to abide by whatever license you chose.OK.> But if I want to add something > completely new (say, a new module for emacs), the code for which > lives in > new and separate files from your code, why should you be able to > dictate to > me what license I use? > > Your answer will no doubt be "no one is forcing you to add that > module to > my program", and you''d be correct. But then we all potentially suffer > because we can''t use my new functionality.I agree with you and Joerg that the GPL definition "derived work" can be ambiguous. We won''t resolve that in this thread. :)> > All the above is, of course, hypothetical, becuase there''s no way > I''d put > myself in that situation in the first place. I think it''s wrong > for me > to dictate license terms to other people.We disagree that the GPL does that, in general. This basically applies to GPL''d "platforms" such as Linux, in any case. Standalone products are much less problematic.> When I publish bodies of work, > I want people who change my code to make their changes publically > available, > so that the community as a whole can be enriched. But if someone > else wants > to add functionality (in the form of new files),Except it doesn''t say "files". Derivation is conceptual. Modules, libraries are where the greyness comes in, agreed.> I object to the notion that > I can dictate to them the terms under which they license their code. > > In short: if you modify MY code, you must abide by my choice of > license. If > you contribute new files to my program, they YOU get to dictate the > license > (provided, of course, that your license allows combination with mine). > >> ''Viral'' is just not the right term. Rather than spreading it (as I >> say, > > What, prey tell, would be your term for something that spreads to > without > choice? > >> associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest campaigns), >> it seems >> you should just admit that you personally don''t happen to like >> this clause of > > I personally don''t like this clause of the GPL. But the fact that > it has > been "associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest > campaigns" > doesn''t make it (the word viral) an inaccurate description.We''ll disagree.> >> the GPL (which is designed to protect users from familiar >> catastrophes). But >> many do, or they wouldn''t deliberately choose this license. > > No, the GPL was written to further the FSF''s cause.I think that''s a mischaracterisation. It was designed to protect users. From: - a program in which they find a bug that the vendor won''t/can''t fix (maybe the vendor went out of business) - vendors blackmailing customers by lock-in (yes, that''s their right; but the FSF wanted to operate in a framework that doesn''t include this) - a program they own but can''t run anymore (can''t port, e.g.) and so on. Choosing a GPL product means you''re choosing, as a user, to avoid such problems in future. Such problems were epidemic and showed every sign of getting worse at the time RMS decided to do something about it. I can''t imagine how diseased the software industry would be today, if he had not.> And I submit that many > of the people who chose the GPL for their code don''t really know > why they''re > doing so, apart from the fact that it''s a well-known open source > license, and > "everyone else does it".Can''t speak for others, but I don''t think it''s true of myself. I wouldn''t choose any weaker license. --Toby> > -- > Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member > > CEO, > My Online Home Inventory > > Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 > URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich > http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
On 13-Apr-07, at 11:43 AM, Toby Thain wrote:> > On 13-Apr-07, at 4:22 AM, Dick Davies wrote: > >> On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote: >> >>> Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of >>> Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL >>> applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications >>> thereto*); it >>> has absolutely nothing to say about what you do with YOUR code. >> >> Until my code comes into contact with yours - that''s the ''viral'' bit. >> (Yes, I can aviod all contact with GPL code, just as I can stay >> away from >> someone with the flu, but it doesn''t mean they don''t have the flu). >> >> And it''s not only Microsoft who have a problem with it - it''s >> anyone who >> wants to keep their changes private for some reason. > > This is by design. You can always dual license like MySQL, > Sleepycat, and a thousand others do.Sorry, I mean a parent project may dual license to encourage commercial use... --T> > --T > >> >> I''ve read embedded linux technical books that had to spend 2 >> chapters explaining how to tiptoe around the GPL - life is too short >> for that sort of rubbish. >> >> >> -- >> Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns >> http://number9.hellooperator.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 13-Apr-07, at 11:53 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:> Can we please get this licensing debate OFF zfs-discuss.Ack. :) --T> > The thread has long since lost any relevance to ZFS on Linux or > even ZFS in general. It instead has become yet another debate by > non legally trained people on their interpretations of one license > over another. > > > -- > Darren J Moffat
Hello Rich, Friday, April 13, 2007, 4:39:03 PM, you wrote: RT> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:>> IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.RT> And I disagree. So we''ll have to agree to disagree.>> The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that spurred >> the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to customise it a bit". In >> this situation it''s quite reasonable that you would abide by the conditions >> I''ve chosen for the stuff you''re using.RT> If I want to customise some of your code, I agree that it''s reasonable for RT> me to abide by whatever license you chose. But if I want to add something RT> completely new (say, a new module for emacs), the code for which lives in RT> new and separate files from your code, why should you be able to dictate to RT> me what license I use? RT> Your answer will no doubt be "no one is forcing you to add that module to RT> my program", and you''d be correct. But then we all potentially suffer RT> because we can''t use my new functionality. And that''s is exactly the case with nvidia drivers in Linux and current discussion about ZFS on Linux. It''s because this viral feature of GPL Linux has a problem sometimes. Why to dictate nvidia the license they want to use for THEIR drivers? Why dictate Open Solaris community to go with all the hassle with dual licensing just because Linux has a problem with its license (it can''t absorb zfs like FreeBSD in an "easy" way). Well, maybe it would be great to have ZFS on every popular OS platform, assuming on-disk compatibility is protected. It''s just that it''s Linux community who should probably finally deal with that problem instead of all the others doing an extra work. They behave strange - they are blaming companies like NVidia or Sun for not licensing THEIR code under GPL license and on the other hand they claim they belive in a freedom... -- Best regards, Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl http://milek.blogspot.com
Hello Toby, Friday, April 13, 2007, 3:06:44 PM, you wrote: TT> On 13-Apr-07, at 9:51 AM, Al Hopper wrote:>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: >> >>> >>> On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: >>>> >>>>> Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies >>>>> of Microsoft >>>>> - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY >>>>> to MY code >>>>> as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely >>>>> nothing to say >>>>> about what you do with YOUR code. >>>> >>>> PLease correct me if I''m wrong: my understanding is that the >>>> granularity >>>> of the GPL is the "project"; all source files that make up that >>>> project >>>> must be GPLed. Is that correct? I believe so, and the FSF''s GPL >>>> FAQ >>>> would seem to agree with me*: >>>> >>>> Q: If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the >>>> GPL as the >>>> license for my module? >>>> >>>> A: The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released >>>> under the GPL. >>>> So your module has to be available for use under the GPL. >>>> >>>> It says right there that if I want to add a new module (file/ >>>> whatever) to >>>> a GPLed program, I MUST USE THE GPL FOR MY CODE. I have no choice >>>> in this >>>> matter: the GPL has "spread" to my module, and can therefore be >>>> described >>>> as being viral in nature. QED. >>> >>> IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion. >> >> No Toby - you have it wrong. GPLv2 is viral in nature and designed >> by its >> creators to be viral.TT> "You keep using that word...">> >>> You can always *not use* MY code. The GPL applies, ab initio, only to >>> MY code. >>> >>>> >>>> * See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl- >>>> faq.html#GPLModuleLicense >>>> >>>>> The GPL, which as you know is built on copyright, is a purely >>>>> voluntary >>>>> license - revealing the analogy to be worthless and the claim pure >>>>> FUD. >>>> >>>> But it''s not a voluntary license. If I want to contribute to a >>>> GPLed project, >>> >>> The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that >>> spurred the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to >>> customise it a bit". In this situation it''s quite reasonable that you >>> would abide by the conditions I''ve chosen for the stuff you''re using. >> >> No .. GPLv2 is designed to force someone who wishes to ship a >> product in >> binary form to publish the source code for it.TT> It forces someone who wishes to ship MY (licensor''s) product in TT> binary form to give their users the same rights they had. It does not TT> force anyone to do anything with THEIR product. This is what you TT> ''viral'' people keep missing. And then you complain you can''t get zfs or nvidia or wifi or ... drivers, because you want that drivers and you want to force those companies to give them for you under GPLv2. Some companies try to go around that problem and there''s still no consensus if it''s legal or not - but everyone is happy enough that they have those drivers than no one is actually doing anything against it (except complaining). I definitely prefer CDDL or BSD license - they just offer more freedom. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl http://milek.blogspot.com
> And then you complain you can''t get zfs or nvidia or wifi or ... > drivers, because you want that drivers and you want to force those > companies to give them for you under GPLv2. Some companies try to go > around that problem and there''s still no consensus if it''s legal or > not - but everyone is happy enough that they have those drivers than > no one is actually doing anything against it (except complaining). > > I definitely prefer CDDL or BSD license - they just offer more > freedom.Gents, please, this thread is dead. And have nothing to do with zfs and practical uses of this powerfull filesystem. regards Claus
On 4/13/07, Robert Milkowski <rmilkowski at task.gda.pl> wrote:> I definitely prefer CDDL or BSD license - they just offer more freedom.+1 The Linux community won''t be happy unless they get anything and everything opensourced. And not only opensourced, it has to be under GPL. And not only under GPL, they want it to be version 2. They don''t respect other projects. They just don''t get it and they won''t. To them, Microsoft = evil. Every line of code in the world has to be under GPL so that Microsoft won''t be able to use it. To me, I just don''t care who uses the code - Microsoft can use ZFS (and other components in Solaris or FreeBSD), it just need to respect CDDL or BSD license. But don''t ask people to change the license to GPL!! Also, the *BSD projects wanted to get a journaling FS. Linux has a few - but then did anyone in the Linux community do anything to get a journaling *BSD a journaling filesystem?? Rayson> > -- > Best regards, > Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl > http://milek.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
> I hope this isn''t turning into a License flame war. > But why do Linux > contributors not deserve the right to retain their > choice of license > as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, > does? > > The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is > astonishing. The > BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally > undesirable to many GPL > licensors (myself included).Nothing wrong with GPL as an abstract ideology. But when ideology trumps practicality (which it does when code can''t be as widely reused as possible), I have a problem with that. As far as I''m concerned, GPL is to open licenses as political correctness is to free speech. Of course, anyone who writes something is free to use any license they please. And anyone else is free to choose an incompatible license, either for reasons that have nothing specifically to do with being incompatible, or because they just don''t want the sucking sound of their goodies being adopted and very little being returned (which strikes me as a major element of the relationship between Linux and *BSD; although to be sure, there is some two-way cooperation). I have zero problem with Linux using GPLv2 (and as some have said, perhaps being stuck with it at this point). I''m not sure I''d want their code anyway, and even if I did, I darn sure wouldn''t want the "we don''t need no steekin'' DDI ''cause we''re source based" philosophy that comes with it, because to my mind that ends up justifying a lot of poor design and engineering discipline in the name of not being limited by backwards compatibility. So, if having chosen a license based on the ideology of being a lever to free other software (but on their terms!) for the sake of being compatible with them, the Linux folks now have to re-invent equivalents of ZFS and Dtrace, it serves them right, IMO. And as someone else also mentioned, competition is good anyway. Not as if a lot of ideas don''t cross-pollinate. But if every free OS used compatible licenses, I think 20 years later, the result would resemble the result of inbreeding...not pretty, and a shallower meme pool overall. This message posted from opensolaris.org
Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote:> Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on OpenSolaris discuss lists > seems to devolve into a license discussion.It is funny to see that in our case, the tecnical problems (those caused by the fact that linux implements a different VFS interface layer) are creating much bigger problem than the license issue does.> I have seen mailing list posts (I''d have to search again) that indicate > [that some believe] that even dynamic linking via dlopen() qualifies as > making a derivative.There is no single place in the GPL that mentions the term "linking". For this reason, the GPL FAQ from the FSF is wring as it is based on the term "linking". There is no difference whether you link statically or dynamically. Whether using GPLd code from a non-GPLd program creates a "derived work" thus cannot depend on whether you link agaist it or not. If a GPLd program however "uses" a non-GPLd library, this is definitely not a problem or every GPLd program linked against the libc from HP-UX would be a problem.> If true that would mean that one could not distribute an OpenSolaris > distribution containing a GPLed PAM module. Or perhaps, because in that > case the header files needed to make the linking possible are not GPLed > the linking-makes-derivatives argument would not apply.If the GPLd PAM module just implements a well known plug in interface, a program that uses this odule cannot be a derivate of the GPLd code. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
"Paul Fisher" <pfisher at alertlogic.net> wrote:> Is there any reason that the CDDL dictates, or that Sun would object, > to zfs being made available as an independently distributed Linux kernel > module? In other words, if I made an Nvidia-like distribution available, > would that be OK from the OpenSolaris side?The way I understand the fact/way that Sun did openSource Solaris is that there are no objections from Sun''s side against using OpenSolaris code inside other projects. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Erblichs wrote:> So, if the license issues are removed, I am sure > that ZFS could be ported over to Linux. It is just > time and effort...I believe you are right, there seems to be a lot of interest in porting ZFS to the Linux kernel. The main problem is, no doubt, the license conflict.
Erblichs <erblichs at earthlink.net> wrote:> Joerg Shilling, > > Putting the license issues aside for a moment.I was trying to point people to the fact that the biggest problems are technical problems and that the license discussion was done the wrong way.> If their is "INTEREST" in ZFS within Linux, should > a small Linux group be formed to break down ZFS in > easily portable sections and non-portable sections. > And get a real-time/effort assessment as to what is > needed to get it done.Going back to the tecnical stuff: - The NFS export interface from Linux is weird and needs adoptation - Linux still has the outdated "namei" inteface instead of the more than 20 year old lookuppathname() interface from SunOS. - The mmap interface is extremely different In general, the problem on Linux is that the Linux "vfs" interface is a low level inteface, so it is most likely easier to adopt a Linux FS to the Solaris vfs interface than vice versa. There is nothing like the clean global vfsops and vnodeops on Solaris but a lot of small interfaces.> Assuming their is interest and usage, if ported, I > would assume that someone/some group would make sure > that the code is resynced on a periodic basis.I also asume that the same people who are interested in a port will do the maintenance...> I know a FS from Veritas and SGI were reviewed in > these manners. The Veritas''s FS originally was > developed using the Sun''s VFS layer. > > So, if the license issues are removed, I am sure > that ZFS could be ported over to Linux. It is just > time and effort...I am sure it could be done but Linux peole cannot asume that Sun will do it ;-) J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Joerg Shilling, Putting the license issues aside for a moment. If their is "INTEREST" in ZFS within Linux, should a small Linux group be formed to break down ZFS in easily portable sections and non-portable sections. And get a real-time/effort assessment as to what is needed to get it done. Assuming their is interest and usage, if ported, I would assume that someone/some group would make sure that the code is resynced on a periodic basis. I know a FS from Veritas and SGI were reviewed in these manners. The Veritas''s FS originally was developed using the Sun''s VFS layer. So, if the license issues are removed, I am sure that ZFS could be ported over to Linux. It is just time and effort... Mitchell Erblich Ex: Sun Kernel Engineer Joerg Schilling wrote:> > Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote: > > > Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on OpenSolaris discuss lists > > seems to devolve into a license discussion. > > It is funny to see that in our case, the tecnical problems (those caused > by the fact that linux implements a different VFS interface layer) are > creating much bigger problem than the license issue does. > > > I have seen mailing list posts (I''d have to search again) that indicate > > [that some believe] that even dynamic linking via dlopen() qualifies as > > making a derivative. > > There is no single place in the GPL that mentions the term "linking". > For this reason, the GPL FAQ from the FSF is wring as it is based on the > term "linking". > > There is no difference whether you link statically or dynamically. > > Whether using GPLd code from a non-GPLd program creates a "derived work" > thus cannot depend on whether you link agaist it or not. If a GPLd program > however "uses" a non-GPLd library, this is definitely not a problem or > every GPLd program linked against the libc from HP-UX would be a problem. > > > If true that would mean that one could not distribute an OpenSolaris > > distribution containing a GPLed PAM module. Or perhaps, because in that > > case the header files needed to make the linking possible are not GPLed > > the linking-makes-derivatives argument would not apply. > > If the GPLd PAM module just implements a well known plug in interface, > a program that uses this odule cannot be a derivate of the GPLd code. > > J?rg > > -- > EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin > js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) > schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Erblichs wrote:> Joerg Schilling, > > Stepping back into the tech discussion. > > If we want a port of ZFS to Linux to begin, SHOULD the kitchen > sink approach be abandoned for the 1.0 release?? For later > releases, dropped functionality could be added in. > > Suggested 1.0 Requirements > -------------------------- > 1) No NFS export support > 2) Basic local FS support (all Vnodeops and VFS op review) > 3) Identify any FSs (source availability) that are common > between Linux and SunOS and use those as porting guides > 4)Identify all Sun DDI/DKI calls that have no Linux equivsIt probably won''t just be DDI/DKI stuff since ZFS depends on thinks like taskq''s which I don''t think exist in Linux. On the upside though there is hope since FreeBSD already solved that problem in their port.> 5)Identify what ZFS apps need supporting > 6)Identify any/all library''s that are needed for the ZFS apps > 7)Identify and acquire as many ZFS validation tests as possible. > 8) Can we/should we assume that the Sun ZFS docs will suffice > as main reference and identify any and all diffs using a > suplimentary doc. > 9) Create a one pager on the mmap() diffs. > 10) Identify whether lookuppathname should be ported over to > Linux, and whether "ships-in-the-night" approach would > cause more problems.Sounds like a good approach. To which I''d a a number 0 - grab the code and compile it and see how far you get, I think a lot of it will compile up without any failures. -- Darren J Moffat
Joerg Schilling, Stepping back into the tech discussion. If we want a port of ZFS to Linux to begin, SHOULD the kitchen sink approach be abandoned for the 1.0 release?? For later releases, dropped functionality could be added in. Suggested 1.0 Requirements -------------------------- 1) No NFS export support 2) Basic local FS support (all Vnodeops and VFS op review) 3) Identify any FSs (source availability) that are common between Linux and SunOS and use those as porting guides 4)Identify all Sun DDI/DKI calls that have no Linux equivs 5)Identify what ZFS apps need supporting 6)Identify any/all library''s that are needed for the ZFS apps 7)Identify and acquire as many ZFS validation tests as possible. 8) Can we/should we assume that the Sun ZFS docs will suffice as main reference and identify any and all diffs using a suplimentary doc. 9) Create a one pager on the mmap() diffs. 10) Identify whether lookuppathname should be ported over to Linux, and whether "ships-in-the-night" approach would cause more problems. Mitchell Erblich Sr Software Engineer --------------------- Joerg Schilling wrote:> > Erblichs <erblichs at earthlink.net> wrote: > > > Joerg Shilling, > > > > Putting the license issues aside for a moment. > > I was trying to point people to the fact that the biggest problems are > technical problems and that the license discussion was done the wrong way. > > > If their is "INTEREST" in ZFS within Linux, should > > a small Linux group be formed to break down ZFS in > > easily portable sections and non-portable sections. > > And get a real-time/effort assessment as to what is > > needed to get it done. > > Going back to the tecnical stuff: > > - The NFS export interface from Linux is weird and needs > adoptation > > - Linux still has the outdated "namei" inteface instead of > the more than 20 year old lookuppathname() interface > from SunOS. > > - The mmap interface is extremely different > > In general, the problem on Linux is that the Linux "vfs" > interface is a low level inteface, so it is most likely easier > to adopt a Linux FS to the Solaris vfs interface than vice versa. > > There is nothing like the clean global vfsops and vnodeops on Solaris > but a lot of small interfaces. > > > Assuming their is interest and usage, if ported, I > > would assume that someone/some group would make sure > > that the code is resynced on a periodic basis. > > I also asume that the same people who are interested in a port > will do the maintenance... > > > I know a FS from Veritas and SGI were reviewed in > > these manners. The Veritas''s FS originally was > > developed using the Sun''s VFS layer. > > > > So, if the license issues are removed, I am sure > > that ZFS could be ported over to Linux. It is just > > time and effort... > > I am sure it could be done but Linux peole cannot asume that > Sun will do it ;-) > > J?rg > > -- > EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin > js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) > schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily