9:58 p.m.
Seems ZFS is out in the wild under the CDDL ( implications of that
license I have no idea of though ).
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/source/
And the linux port is underway? :
http://www.sun.com/emrkt/campaign_docs/expertexchange/knowledge/solaris_z...
So does anybody know if the CDDL restricts the ability for it reaching
the main kernel? And anybody else think it would be a really cool
addition?
10:04 p.m.
On 11/17/05, Naoki <naoki(a)valuecommerce.com> wrote:
So does anybody know if the CDDL restricts the ability for it
reaching
the main kernel? And anybody else think it would be a really cool
addition?
9 out of 10 Helen's agree... the CDDL is GPL incompatible.
-jef"i should really by the kids in the hall on dvd"spaleta
6:08 a.m.
Am Donnerstag, den 17.11.2005, 23:04 -0500 schrieb Jeff Spaleta:
9 out of 10 Helen's agree... the CDDL is GPL incompatible.
I did not get the point where the CDDL is GPL incompatible.
Maybe you mean the GPL does not allow to have other licenses.
AFAIK the CDDL is a BSD Style License. So where exactly do you come to
the conclusion that Software written under this license can't be used in
a GPL'ed environment?
--
Stefan Held VI has only 2 Modes:
obi at unixkiste org The first one is for beeping all the time,
IRCNet: Obi_Wan the second destroys the text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
perl -e'map{print pack c,($|++?1:13)+ord,select$,,$,,$,,$|}split//,ESEL.$/'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG-Keyprint = EAF2 6A65 D102 F2DB 4970 2A67 455B 98F2 572C 3FA9
6:15 a.m.
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 13:08 +0100, Stefan Held wrote:
AFAIK the CDDL is a BSD Style License.
More MPL like.
So where exactly do you come to
the conclusion that Software written under this license can't be used
in a GPL'ed environment?
(compiled) kernel modules are generally seen as a derived work of the
kernel, especially when integrated with the kernel. The GPL requires
derived works to be GPL licensed; not "compatible" like BSD, but GPL
licensed. The GPL also requires that when you ship 2 pieces of software
together that are highly interdependent as one whole (even when they're
not derived works), that the entire whole is GPL licensed.
Yes the GPL is quite viral....
7:02 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:15:49PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
kernel, especially when integrated with the kernel. The GPL requires
derived works to be GPL licensed; not "compatible" like BSD, but GPL
licensed. The GPL also requires that when you ship 2 pieces of software
Common confusion.
The GPL requires the work as a whole must meet the GPL license.
| These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
| identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
| and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
| themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
| sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
| distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
| on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
| this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
| entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
You can do that combining non advertising clause BSD and GPL code. In doing
so you create a work that must now be used according to the terms of the GPL.
Equally you have no effect on the case where one can reasonably be a seperate
work and distributed seperately - which is what most legal systems enforce
anyway.
The kernel contains large amounts of code that has come legally from BSD
licensed sources and is now part of the kernel and thus must be treated in
GPL manner.
I've not looked in detail at the CDDL itself but there are many problems with
BSD like licenses (such as the lack of patent grant guarantees) and I would
suggest discussing the matter with US lawyers or the FSF
11:57 a.m.
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 13:08 +0100, Stefan Held wrote:
I did not get the point where the CDDL is GPL incompatible.
Maybe you mean the GPL does not allow to have other licenses.
As found at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;
it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with
the GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be
maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of
notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain
aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and
a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together.
We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.
Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term
"intellectual property"
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key
(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
9:30 p.m.
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 13:08 +0100, Stefan Held wrote:
AFAIK the CDDL is a BSD Style License. So where exactly do you come
to
the conclusion that Software written under this license can't be used in
a GPL'ed environment?
Not only is it not compatible (as others pointed out quite eloquently),
but is not compatible on purpose, IMNSHO.
Sun absolutely need to distribute OpenSolaris code under CDDL, in order
to prevent exactly what was asked here - an outflow of technology from
Solaris to Linux (and that's where those patents licensed to CDDL code
only come in even more handy). That's why they picked that licence and
not the GPL in the first place. People that contribute to OpenSolaris
are always going to be at Sun's mercy to keep releasing the closed
binaries (remember, half of "Open"Solaris is closed binaries). If Sun
goes bust tomorrow, who's going to give those people an up-to-date copy
of the binaries? Exactly!
Furthermore, Sun are in the unique position here, not only because they
control those binaries, but because they can ship a binary only Solaris
distro with bits that others don't have access to at all (though their
long standing relationships with various proprietary software vendors).
So, people that are working on OpenSolaris effectively become free of
charge Sun employees. Really nice touch. IMNSHO, that part was also
designed on purpose, because Sun realised that they cannot maintain
Solaris as a proprietary Unix forever (it was evident for a while that
Linux gets new stuff way faster), so they went on to recruit open source
community to work for them for free. Thanks, but no thanks.
Contrast this with true open source companies like Red Hat (note: I am
not a RH employee). If Red Hat went bust today, anyone could take all
Red Hat code (including Fedora, RHEL, GFS etc.) and continue at exactly
the same point where Red Hat left off (in fact, people like CentOS are
doing exactly that already). It is simply not possible to do that with
"Open"Solaris, because Sun controls vital binary bits and reserves the
right to release "slightly different" binaries in their proprietary
version, thus shifting the balance of power from the community to
themselves.
So, unless Sun change their mind, I don't think we'll see ZFS in Linux
at all. They may as well do that if the OpenSolaris thing doesn't pan
out the way they expected. Only future will tell.
PS. I know that I will now forever be labelled as a "nut-case" by Sun
lovers, but I like to call is as see it.
--
Bojan
10:08 p.m.
On Thursday 17 November 2005 22:58, Naoki wrote:
Seems ZFS is out in the wild under the CDDL ( implications of that
license I have no idea of though ).
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/source/
And the linux port is underway? :
http://www.sun.com/emrkt/campaign_docs/expertexchange/knowledge/solaris_zfs
_gen.html#10
Q: When is the Solaris 10 OS slated for full release?
A: The current schedule is to ship the Solaris 10 OS at the end of calendar
year 2004.
Hmmm - might be slightly outdated... And I couldn't find any newer linux
references since then... So I guess, that means no port any time soon...
Peter.
10:09 p.m.
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 12:58 +0900, Naoki wrote:
So does anybody know if the CDDL restricts the ability for it reaching
the main kernel? And anybody else think it would be a really cool
addition?
CDDL is incompatible with the GPL. Highly doubtful it would end up in
mainline kernel, and thus in Fedora's kernel.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key
(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
10:11 p.m.
Naoki wrote:
Seems ZFS is out in the wild under the CDDL ( implications of that
license I have no idea of though ).
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/source/
And the linux port is underway? :
http://www.sun.com/emrkt/campaign_docs/expertexchange/knowledge/solaris_z...
So does anybody know if the CDDL restricts the ability for it reaching
the main kernel? And anybody else think it would be a really cool
addition?
IIRC, the CDDL is not GPL compatible. Unless it is licensed under the
GPL, it will not be placed in the kernel. I believe the CDDL also
prevents it from being added to Fedora Core or Fedora Extras.
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
www.n-man.com
--
11:14 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 22:11 -0600, Patrick Barnes wrote:
Naoki wrote:
> Seems ZFS is out in the wild under the CDDL ( implications of that
> license I have no idea of though ).
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/source/
>
>
> And the linux port is underway? :
>
http://www.sun.com/emrkt/campaign_docs/expertexchange/knowledge/solaris_z...
>
>
> So does anybody know if the CDDL restricts the ability for it reaching
> the main kernel? And anybody else think it would be a really cool
> addition?
>
>
IIRC, the CDDL is not GPL compatible. Unless it is licensed under the
GPL, it will not be placed in the kernel. I believe the CDDL also
prevents it from being added to Fedora Core or Fedora Extras.
Well N-Man, that's unfortunate. I propose a new file system called
"NFS" with the same features :)
11:20 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 22:11 -0600, Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
IIRC, the CDDL is not GPL compatible. Unless it is licensed under the
GPL, it will not be placed in the kernel.
I believe the CDDL also
prevents it from being added to Fedora Core or Fedora Extras.
Hmmm... The CDDL appears to be listed on http://www.opensource.org/
which IIRC was the criteria for licenses of software going into Extras
at one time. Is this incorrect (or incorrect now)?
OTOH, if it cannot go into the kernel, that would be because it's
classified as a derivative work. If it's classified as a derivative
work then it's in violation of the GPL whether or not it's distributed
in the kernel, right? IANAL and I am very tired at the moment so my
chain of reasoning here could be totally specious.
-Toshio
7:48 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:20:00PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
classified as a derivative work. If it's classified as a
derivative
work then it's in violation of the GPL whether or not it's distributed
in the kernel, right? IANAL and I am very tired at the moment so my
chain of reasoning here could be totally specious.
Basically for a derivative work you must meet all the requirements of all
the licenses simultaneously.
eg if you combine a work that is 'non commercial use' and a work that is
licensed 'for stage performance only' you end up with a work that is licensed
for non commercial stage performance only.
11:28 p.m.
Quoting Naoki <naoki(a)valuecommerce.com>:
So does anybody know if the CDDL restricts the ability for it
reaching
the main kernel?
Absolutely. CDDL is incompatible with the GPL (as a copyright licence),
because it puts additional restrictions on the code that don't exist in
the GPL. Also, ZFS may include Sun patents that are licensed through
the CDDL for that code _only_ (i.e. Sun ZFS code, most likely in its
unmodified form). Meaning, even creating a "clone" (i.e. a different,
functionally equivalent implementation) may be a problem (depending on
the existence of Sun patents inside ZFS).
And anybody else think it would be a really cool
addition?
Sure. But don't keep you hopes up. Unless Sun release ZFS under the GPL
(fat chance, pigs flying etc.), it won't be part of Linux any time
soon. The other option is that Linux gets relicensed under, say GPL3
(which doesn't exist yet and may not be compatible with CDDL anyway).
This is close to impossible, because not all copyright holders in the
Linux kernel can (or would) give their permission for such a change.
--
Bojan
6734
days inactive
6735
days old
13 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Alan Cox -
Arjan van de Ven -
Bojan Smojver -
Jef Spaleta -
Jesse Keating -
Naoki -
Patrick W. Barnes -
Peter Arremann -
Stefan Held -
Toshio Kuratomi