Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL

natlawreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL

#11

Post by chriswarbo »

grabcocque wrote: post #5

It's perhaps a moot point. Canonical have been distributing OpenZFS binaries for going on two years even though the FSF and the SFLC believe them to be in violation of the GPL. Angry blog posts doesn't cut it. The nature of law and precedent is that unless the FSF or SFLC sue Canonical Ltd. soonish for their distribution of OpenZFS Linux modules, their assertion that the GPL doesn't generally apply to kernel modules…

The FSF and SFLC aren't "allowing wilfull violation"; they aren't the copyright owners of the Linux kernel, they just-so-happened to write some licensing terms (the GPLv2) which the Linux kernel authors decided to use of their own volition. If anyone's "allowing" something, it's the kernel developers.

Keep in mind that (a) the FSF uses copyright assignment for many projects, which would put it in a legal position to pursue infringements for those projects, but Linux is not one of those projects; (b) the SFLC is a legal organisation, not a software developer, so they only pursue infringements on behalf of client projects; as far as I'm aware, Linux is not one of their clients.

I've not waded too far into this before, but from reading http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.... it seems to me that:

- Canonical distributes Linux+ZFS binaries under the GPLv2.

- As per the GPLv2, Canonical must provide the corresponding source, also under the GPLv2.

- The ZFS source is under the CDDL, which permits relicensing binaries (hence it's compatible with the first point) but not relicensing of the source, which is incompatible with the second point.

- Hence Canonical can either provide Linux+ZFS source under the GPLv2, violating the source's CDDL; or provide Linux source under GPLv2 and ZFS source under CDDL, violating the binary's GPLv2; or stop distributing Linux+ZFS binaries. They chose the second option.

- Since CDDL and GPLv2 are both copyleft FOSS licenses, this incompatibility is arguably a technicality since it doesn't violate the "spirit" of either license, and may be ignored at the copyright owner's discretion.

- The copyright owners of Linux seem to be ignoring it, which is fine.

So I don't see what the big deal is. By acting in this way, Canonical improve the usability of their distro, whilst they and their users/customers incur the risk that some day, potentially, they might have to change their config to build the module separately (like Debian does).

Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL

#12

Post by l1ambda »

chriswarbo wrote: post #11
grabcocque wrote: post #5

It's perhaps a moot point. Canonical have been distributing OpenZFS binaries for going on two years even though the FSF and the SFLC believe them to be in violation of the GPL. Angry blog posts doesn't cut it. The nature of law and precedent is that unless the FSF or SFLC sue Canonical Ltd. soonish for their distribution of OpenZFS Linux modules, their assertion that the GPL doesn't generally apply to kernel modules…

The FSF and SFLC aren't "allowing wilfull violation"; they aren't the copyright owners of the Linux kernel, they just-so-happened to write some licensing terms (the GPLv2) which the Linux kernel authors decided to use of their own volition. If anyone's "allowing" something, it's the kernel developers. Keep in mind that (a) the FSF uses copyright assignment for many projects, which would put it in a legal position to…

And the only pertinent clause would be in the GPL (the CDDL doesn't care), regarding if ZFS were a derivative work of Linux, which it plainly is not.

All this "GPL and CDDL are incompatible!" is nonsense.

Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL

#13

Post by Lillian656 »

joatmon-snoo wrote: post #2

Surprised to see this is from May. Just skimming, it sounds like something that should've gotten some traction, if I'm not mistaken - aren't open source licenses contested in court relatively infrequently?

Marcus answered I am inspired that anyone can earn $7391 in 4 weeks on the internet . http://www.bosscyber.com

Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL

#14

Post by wmf »

l1ambda wrote: post #12
chriswarbo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FSF and SFLC aren't "allowing wilfull violation"; they aren't the copyright owners of the Linux kernel, they just-so-happened to write some licensing terms (the GPLv2) which the Linux kernel authors decided to use of their own volition. If anyone's "allowing" something, it's the kernel developers. Keep in mind that (a) the FSF uses copyright assignment for many projects, which would put it in a legal position to…

And the only pertinent clause would be in the GPL (the CDDL doesn't care), regarding if ZFS were a derivative work of Linux, which it plainly is not. All this "GPL and CDDL are incompatible!" is nonsense.

But is the Ubuntu ISO a derivative work of Linux?

Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL

#16

Post by jdboyd »

wmf wrote: post #14
l1ambda wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the only pertinent clause would be in the GPL (the CDDL doesn't care), regarding if ZFS were a derivative work of Linux, which it plainly is not. All this "GPL and CDDL are incompatible!" is nonsense.

But is the Ubuntu ISO a derivative work of Linux?

The binary kernel in the ISO seems to certainly be a derivative work of Linux, but only the copyright owners whose code is included in that binary kernel would have standing to sue about this. That means parties like Linus Torvalds, Intel, LSI, and many other companies and individuals. And clearly so far those copyright holders haven't seen fit to sue about it.

It seems fair to anticipate no law suits since as far as I'm aware kernel developers have never filed a law suit against companies committing really blatant infringement. Most of the action there seemed to come from the BusyBox project.

Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL

#17

Post by bsder »

grabcocque wrote: post #5

It's perhaps a moot point. Canonical have been distributing OpenZFS binaries for going on two years even though the FSF and the SFLC believe them to be in violation of the GPL. Angry blog posts doesn't cut it. The nature of law and precedent is that unless the FSF or SFLC sue Canonical Ltd. soonish for their distribution of OpenZFS Linux modules, their assertion that the GPL doesn't generally apply to kernel modules…

> The nature of law and precedent is that unless the FSF or SFLC sue Canonical Ltd. soonish for their distribution of OpenZFS Linux modules, their assertion that the GPL doesn't generally apply to kernel modules will become legal precedent by default.

Huh? Are you sure you aren't confusing copyright (which is automatic on creation of a work and requires no defense) with trademark (which requires a filing and which does require an affirmative defense)?

Now, you may lose certain damages because they passed out of statute of limitations because you didn't sue for copyright infringement if made aware of it. However, you don't lose the copyright and can sue for damages still in range and in the future.

Besides, in the case of ZFS, who is going to sue? Linus doesn't care. Canonical doesn't care. Illumos don't seem to care.

So, the only people who might care and have standing are Oracle, but bringing such a lawsuit won't get them money, so Larry doesn't care.

So, basically, Canonical can continue distributing it since nobody cares.

Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL

#18

Post by bsder »

l1ambda wrote: post #12
chriswarbo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FSF and SFLC aren't "allowing wilfull violation"; they aren't the copyright owners of the Linux kernel, they just-so-happened to write some licensing terms (the GPLv2) which the Linux kernel authors decided to use of their own volition. If anyone's "allowing" something, it's the kernel developers. Keep in mind that (a) the FSF uses copyright assignment for many projects, which would put it in a legal position to…

And the only pertinent clause would be in the GPL (the CDDL doesn't care), regarding if ZFS were a derivative work of Linux, which it plainly is not. All this "GPL and CDDL are incompatible!" is nonsense.

It is not nonsense, and Sun went out of its way to make sure that the CDDL and GPL are incompatible.

So, all the ZFS on Linux users are okay until Oracle sees money in suing them.

Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL

#19

Post by l1ambda »

bsder wrote: post #18
l1ambda wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the only pertinent clause would be in the GPL (the CDDL doesn't care), regarding if ZFS were a derivative work of Linux, which it plainly is not. All this "GPL and CDDL are incompatible!" is nonsense.

It is not nonsense, and Sun went out of its way to make sure that the CDDL and GPL are incompatible. So, all the ZFS on Linux users are okay until Oracle sees money in suing them.

> Sun went out of its way to make sure that the CDDL and GPL are incompatible.

What evidence is there of this?

Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL

#20

Post by wmf »

l1ambda wrote: post #19
bsder wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not nonsense, and Sun went out of its way to make sure that the CDDL and GPL are incompatible. So, all the ZFS on Linux users are okay until Oracle sees money in suing them.

> Sun went out of its way to make sure that the CDDL and GPL are incompatible. What evidence is there of this?

Sun could have written the CDDL to be GPL-compatible yet they chose not to and they generally refused to explain why. I suspect that they did not want to see OpenSolaris become an "organ donor" for Linux but they also didn't want to appear weak by saying so in public.

The closest I can find is where Simon Phipps said "to be GPL compatible you actually have to be willing to have your license discarded and replaced with the GPL. It's more a Borg-like assimilation than compatibility, in my view, and pretty undesirable as it results in future code enrichment being accumulated in some other code commons." https://web.archive.org/web/20050420234857/http://blogs.sun....

Post reply on HN