
ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux? - zdw
https://eerielinux.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/zfs-and-gpl-terror-how-much-freedom-is-there-in-linux/
======
AdmiralAsshat
>Sun deliberately made the CDDL incompatible with the GPL!

>

>This is a claim supported primarily by one former employee of Sun. Others
disagree. And even if it was verifiably true: What about Open Source values?
Since when is the GPL the only acceptable Open Source license?

Lots of hand-waving and false equivalency here. We're not talking about "Open
Source values", we're talking specifically about the _Linux kernel_. And the
_Linux kernel_ is GPLv2 licensed. The Software Freedom Conservancy analyzed
the situation and determined that a GPL-licensed project cannot legally
incorporate CDDL code into the binary[0].

FWIW, Ubuntu has done so anyway via a kernel module and yet has to be sued for
it, but the Linux kernel project may still refrain from doing so out of an
abundance of caution.

I believe someone else summed it up quite well when they said (paraphrasing),
"Solaris intentionally made ZFS difficult to incorporate into Linux by the
licensing, so the Linux developers are (understandably) tired of bending over
backwards to try to accommodate ZFS."

[0][https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-
linux/](https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/)

~~~
mustache_kimono
It is worth noting that the GPL2-CDDL license incompatibility is still a
theoretical legal issue, and that there are differing learned opinions with
respect to the confluence of the CDDL, GPL2, and ZFS. For instance, Eben
Moglen, co-author of the GPL3, has indicated that incompatibility is not an
issue[0]. Many Sun employees have also disagreed that Sun's intent was to make
the CDDL incompatible with the GPL2.

[0] [https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-
kernel-...](https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-
cddl.html)

------
cmurf
No new territory is covered in this article. It's a lot of words that skips
over the central question: are CDDL and GPL incompatible and if so what does
that mean for the user?

The article addresses this the wrong way: >Sun deliberately made the CDDL
incompatible with the GPL!

Doesn't matter whether it's deliberate or not. And it's not merely one
opinion, it's GNU, FSF, SFC, Debian, Fedora - quite a lot I'm not going to
list them all, who do consider CDDL a free software license, but also consider
it incompatible with GPL.

I have yet to read anything from Linux developers or users that they don't
like ZFS, quite the contrary. And the solution is distros won't package pre-
built binaries, you have to compile it yourself. And it's not that difficult.

The article seems to argue that some Linux people in power hate ZFS (no
evidence) and use CDDL GPL incompatibility as an excuse to keep it away from
Linux users (again no evidence).

~~~
apple4ever
Except for the evidence of making calls GPL only, for no legal or technical
reason.

All they have to do is allow the calls. (Its a silly restriction anyway).

------
outworlder
It is ironic that the very same license that tries to prevent greedy companies
from stealing open-source code is also preventing code from said
(former)greedy company to be contributed back.

------
mikece
Makes me wonder how long it will be before a license is codified that is as
permissive as BSD/MIT/Apache2 but specifically prohibits using the code in
copyleft code bases. The question has been posed elsewhere:

[https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/6234/is-
there...](https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/6234/is-there-a-
generally-accepted-anti-copyleft-clause-or-license)

~~~
AlexMax
What would be the point?

Copyleft licenses ensure that the code itself remains open source. MIT-style
licenses ensures that a developer can use the code without encumbrance. And
there are already plenty of licenses out there that are incompatible with the
GPL through other conflicting terms - non-commercial licenses come to mind.

What would be the goal of an anti-copyleft license other than to stick it to
copyleft projects?

------
parvenu74
"Pessimistic" is a good generalization of the GPL mindset in my opinion: "If I
don't make this thing GPL then some greedy-bastard company will make a fortune
off of my ideas and never give me a cut, credit, or contribute back."

Maybe, but it's a dim way of looking at other people.

~~~
Iolaum
Remember that GPL is a product of the realities around the open source
ecosystem when Bill Gates and Steve Balmer where CEOs on Microsoft. Moreover
the situation with some android OEMs that don't provide source code for their
devices shows that this is still happening today.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> _Remember that GPL is a product of the realities around the open source
> ecosystem when Bill Gates and Steve Balmer where CEOs on Microsoft._

The irony being that formerly FOSS companies are turning to dual licensing,
"open core", and similar non-free strategies because it turned out that Gates
& Ballmer, y'know, like, actually had a point: you need income in order to
keep your business running.

And, by the way, you're wrong anyway: GPLv1 came out in '89 and GPLv2 came out
in '91\. Microsoft was a relatively minor player at that time; its meteoric
rise to dominance didn't begin until a few years later.

------
towaway1138
Not sure why anyone is in "terror". ZFS cannot be legally used with Linux.
That's been clear almost from the start.

It's dead. At best it might have a few useful ideas to put into our live
filesystems.

------
Andrew_nenakhov
Of course Linux benefitted from being published under GNU GPL. At that point
of time the appearance of a GNU kernel for i386 architecture was inevitable

------
jhasse
Mir is not GPL. It's GPL+CLA. Tiny, but very important difference.

------
nick3499
Github deal <\-- bribe or bullet

