Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL
#2Surprised 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?
Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL
#3Previous discussion. This was just the initial motion for dismissal rather than a final ruling.
Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL
#4This is old news (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14323265).
It also wasn't newsworthy when it happened. There's nothing specific to the GPL really implicated here. All the court ruled was, essentially, that you can't just take someone's copyrighted code and use it without permission. It would have been pretty shocking if any other result were reached at that stage.
Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL
#5It'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 will become legal precedent by default.
Now, I know the SFLC say that litigation is a last resort. But, it's been 18 months since the last Frank Exchange of Views happened over ZFS and the mutual incompatibility of the GPL and CDDL, and no observable legal movement by either side has happened.
Does that mean the FSF/SLFC are frightened that Canonical Ltd.s' legal interpretation would prevail should it ever come to court, or is there another reason the self-professed guardians of software freedom are allowing Canonical to, according to them, wilfully violate the terms of the GPL?
Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL
#6It'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…
First, things don't become legal precedent until someone sues and a judge rules on it (and preferably the ruling is upheld on appeal).
Second, what makes you think FSF/SLFC have standing to sue Canonical in this matter in the first place? Unless the rights of the FSF or SLFC themselves are infringed, they can't sue, even if they happen to have strong opinions on this matter. Either Oracle, some other OpenZFS contributor, or a Linux kernel contributor would have to be the ones bringing suit here - and of all these parties, probably only Oracle would actually want to do so.
Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL
#7It'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…
First, things don't become legal precedent until someone sues and a judge rules on it (and preferably the ruling is upheld on appeal). Second, what makes you think FSF/SLFC have standing to sue Canonical in this matter in the first place? Unless the rights of the FSF or SLFC themselves are infringed, they can't sue, even if they happen to have strong opinions on this matter. Either Oracle, some other OpenZFS contribu…
The FSF/SFLC who are the authors and therefore guardians of the GPL maintain, publicly, that Canonical is in violation of its license. And yet, no legal action, no cease and desist has been sent.
In UK law, failure to enforce a claim or right is taken as reasonable assertion that the owner doesn't see the right as conscionable.
For better or worse, the FSF/SFLC is risking, through inaction which allows Canonical off the hook for claimed non-compliant behaviour, of having the soi-disant 'virality' of the GPL potentially ruled unconscionable (in Europe).
Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, things don't become legal precedent until someone sues and a judge rules on it (and preferably the ruling is upheld on appeal). Second, what makes you think FSF/SLFC have standing to sue Canonical in this matter in the first place? Unless the rights of the FSF or SLFC themselves are infringed, they can't sue, even if they happen to have strong opinions on this matter. Either Oracle, some other OpenZFS contribu…
The FSF/SFLC who are the authors and therefore guardians of the GPL maintain, publicly, that Canonical is in violation of its license. And yet, no legal action, no cease and desist has been sent. In UK law, failure to enforce a claim or right is taken as reasonable assertion that the owner doesn't see the right as conscionable. For better or worse, the FSF/SFLC is risking, through inaction which allows Canonical off…
Just because someone uses your license, doesn't give you ownership rights or a legal cause of action regarding the code they licensed. What matters is who wrote OpenZFS, not who wrote the GPL.
Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FSF/SFLC who are the authors and therefore guardians of the GPL maintain, publicly, that Canonical is in violation of its license. And yet, no legal action, no cease and desist has been sent. In UK law, failure to enforce a claim or right is taken as reasonable assertion that the owner doesn't see the right as conscionable. For better or worse, the FSF/SFLC is risking, through inaction which allows Canonical off…
Just because someone uses your license, doesn't give you ownership rights or a legal cause of action regarding the code they licensed. What matters is who wrote OpenZFS , not who wrote the GPL.
Since ZFS isn't under the GPL I think copyright holder(s) of the Linux kernel, not the copyright holder(s) of OpenZFS, would have to sue Canonical.
Re: Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, things don't become legal precedent until someone sues and a judge rules on it (and preferably the ruling is upheld on appeal). Second, what makes you think FSF/SLFC have standing to sue Canonical in this matter in the first place? Unless the rights of the FSF or SLFC themselves are infringed, they can't sue, even if they happen to have strong opinions on this matter. Either Oracle, some other OpenZFS contribu…
The FSF/SFLC who are the authors and therefore guardians of the GPL maintain, publicly, that Canonical is in violation of its license. And yet, no legal action, no cease and desist has been sent. In UK law, failure to enforce a claim or right is taken as reasonable assertion that the owner doesn't see the right as conscionable. For better or worse, the FSF/SFLC is risking, through inaction which allows Canonical off…
1) UK law should not be generalized worldwide.
2) The writer of the license has no special powers to interpret, enforce, or guard code licensed under that license. They can express strong opinions, which (if it's a well written license) garner attention, but they don't have any actual legal rights in the matter. Only the copyright holder (or someone they've delegated their rights to) can bring suit.
3) Even if the rights are estopped due to being left unenforced, if you go out tomorrow, contribute some code to the linux kernel, and then wait for canonical to link that with ZFS, you would almost certainly have your own right to bring suit. You're not estopped by someone else's failure to enforce their own rights, independent and unrelated to yours.
In any case, the arguments over ZFS have always boiled down to a few technical incompatibilities between the GPL and CDDL, mostly centering around some patent licensing clauses in the CDDL. While plenty of parties theoretically have standing to sue, in practice the Linux folks would love to merge it if they could, as would the OpenZFS authors - with the notable potential exception of Oracle, who remains silent on the issue. As such, none of the open-source developers are suing to enforce any sort of technical licensing problem because it's not in their interests to do so. And if Oracle gives up some rights, well, that's a good thing, right?
In short, most everyone involved doesn't want there to be a lawsuit - and so there isn't. And that's not a bad thing. The problem the FSF/SFLC keep going on about is that there's a lot of uncertainty - i.e. "someone _could_ cause you a lot of trouble by suing, so please stop doing this before you get yourself or your customers sued by someone else".