Slashdot Mirror
Software Freedom Conservancy: Distributing Linux With ZFS Is Illegal (phoronix.com)
LichtSpektren writes: Phoronix reports that Bradley M. Kuhn and Karen M. Sandler at the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFS) have posted a blog post today arguing that Canonical's plan to distribute Ubuntu 16.04 LTS "Xenial Xerus" with support for the ZFS file system violates the Linux kernel's GPLv2 license.
On February 18, Dustin Kirkland at Canonical wrote on his blog: "We at Canonical have conducted a legal review, including discussion with the industry's leading software freedom legal counsel, of the licenses that apply to the Linux kernel and to ZFS. And in doing so, we have concluded that we are acting within the rights granted and in compliance with their terms of both of those licenses...The CDDL cannot apply to the Linux kernel because zfs.ko is a self-contained file system module — the kernel itself is quite obviously not a derivative work of this new file system. And zfs.ko, as a self-contained file system module, is clearly not a derivative work of the Linux kernel but rather quite obviously a derivative work of OpenZFS and OpenSolaris. Equivalent exceptions have existed for many years, for various other stand alone, self-contained, non-GPL kernel modules. Our conclusion is good for Ubuntu users, good for Linux, and good for all of free and open source software."
The SFS's blog post of today states: "We are sympathetic to Canonical's frustration in this desire to easily support more features for their users. However, as set out below, we have concluded that their distribution of zfs.ko violates the GPL."
On February 18, Dustin Kirkland at Canonical wrote on his blog: "We at Canonical have conducted a legal review, including discussion with the industry's leading software freedom legal counsel, of the licenses that apply to the Linux kernel and to ZFS. And in doing so, we have concluded that we are acting within the rights granted and in compliance with their terms of both of those licenses...The CDDL cannot apply to the Linux kernel because zfs.ko is a self-contained file system module — the kernel itself is quite obviously not a derivative work of this new file system. And zfs.ko, as a self-contained file system module, is clearly not a derivative work of the Linux kernel but rather quite obviously a derivative work of OpenZFS and OpenSolaris. Equivalent exceptions have existed for many years, for various other stand alone, self-contained, non-GPL kernel modules. Our conclusion is good for Ubuntu users, good for Linux, and good for all of free and open source software."
The SFS's blog post of today states: "We are sympathetic to Canonical's frustration in this desire to easily support more features for their users. However, as set out below, we have concluded that their distribution of zfs.ko violates the GPL."
I'm not sure what anyone would stand to gain by arguing that Ubuntu is violating the GPLv2 license. It seems kind of ridiculous.
Why oh why do we have to keep shooting ourselves in the foot?
OK I'm a BSD user so, well, stones and glass houses, but even so the open source community's continuing ability to why things should not be allowed is depressing...most people in our crowd want our stuff to be USED by as many people as possible...
Linux does not have a stable file-system and volume manager that can come anywhere near the performance and stability of ZFS.
Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
The Linux Foundation, as the copyright holder of the Linux kernel, gets to determine what is and is not allowed.
This is matter does not involve Software Freedom Conservancy (SFS) or Free Software Foundation (FSF), they are are not even parties to the copyright license used for the Linux kernel.
In my professional opinion, Canonical can feel free to tell SFS to go pound sand.
There's no such thing as unlimited freedom. You have to pick the freedoms you care about, and then forbid those that would violate it.
Regardless of the legal situation, the holder of the copyright to the vast majority of the kernel doesn't object to binary modules. There are those who would argue that even certain user-space binaries are a GPL violation. Fortunately those voices haven't prevailed. I guess, at some point, to squelch any doubts, ZFS will have to get turned into something akin to a hybrid driver where code to load interchangeable binary blobs with a certain interface is contributed to the kernel under GPL and the blobs come with their own license. In this case it will be CDDLv1. This is somewhat of a PITA but it's actually good in the medium-term because it means that users face less ambiguity in terms of knowing under which license they are receiving code.
>The FSF, stewards of the GPL, have stated many times over the past decades that they believe there is no legal distinction between dynamic and static linking of a C program and we agree.
The FSF is almost certainly wrong in this. Linking isn't going to even be considered in a court room. What they *will* consider is whether or not zfs.ko contains derivative work from Linux. Headers are now subject to copyright (as is my understanding) so it's very possible that it does. However, if they use "api-only" headers, such as posix stuff and it does not rely on being compiled against the GPL-ed version of the headers, then they are most likely going to be free and clear of any issues.
Personally, the SFC can go eat a bag of dicks and die in a fire.
Reading their piece, they sound like they are lawyers looking for a client, like they want to take Canonical to court over this. One likes to think that anyone who defends OSS must be on the side of the light, but I note that the Conservancy sued companies using Busybox over the objections of at least some of the copyright holders. This quote is kind of interesting:
"But that didn't stop them from creating a self-funding legal machine where they never found any actual useful code that should have gone upstream, but they still demanded $15k or so in legal fees each time so they could go sue the next company."
For those who didn't RTFA, the core of the question is this: Is a Linux distro that contains a ZFS module a combined product, derived from Linux and/or ZFS? Or are they two independent items that happen to be delivered in the same package. The Conservancy states "we have yet to encounter a Linux module that — when distributed in binary form — did not, in our view, yield combined work with Linux", and then they go on to say that the intend to "exhaust every diplomatic option...before seeking resolution from the courts".
Only: nobody is asking them to take anyone to court. If Oracle doesn't like this (they are the primary holder of ZFS copyrights), I'm sure they have their own lawyers. So WTF is going on here? Instead of a patent troll, maybe we have a GPL troll?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Oracle has been looking to profit form the free labor from open source software advocates ever since it was losing clients to MySQL which they later purchased. The original developers were so concerned they created MariaDB. And from this LibreOffice sprung to protect "OpenOffice" and after realizing Oracle was never going to make money on OO They give it to the Apache Foundation. Oracle has not had a history of playing nice with the open source community and their development on MySQL and related products has not exactly been dedicated. Suspect they are only doing it because it was a condition for the EU to allow the European portion of the take over of Sun Microsystems. Why hasn't Oracle just put put ZFS as a fully open GPL2 compliant code for all to use and improve? Probably, like OpenOffice, to see if they can exploit it to their benefit in some way, which could even sabotage Linux (or at least Ubuntu). Debian has the right idea in distributing the source only of ZFS. We'll see where this goes but I think The Software Freedom Conservancy is in the right, and in cases like this far better to err on the side of caution. If everyone lobbied Oracle, we could get a proper and compatible ZFS license that oracle couldn't do a poison pill or "about face" on later. Why not give that a try.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
So, Software Freedom means that you can't do what you want with your software? Is this one of those Richard Stalin - I mean, Stallman - groups or something?
If you didn't write it, it's not your software. You can acquire the right to use it in exchange for your agreement to the terms of the license. The freedom part comes in where the terms of the license say that you get to modify and distribute it without anyone's permission. Again, in exchange for your agreement to the terms of the license.
Nope, no sig
I've read both arguments, and since I know everyone posting here has also (right?), I won't bother with too much of a critique.
I have to side with Canonical on this one. Their short and sweet post pretty much puts to bed the legal ramblings of the Software Freedom Conservancy. The SFS article reads like they started out trying to make a point, then has to fallback on an academic lesson on GPL Incompatibility and Combined/Derivative works. I would go so far as to say their verbosity defeats their own argument, while managing to inset the letters "ZFS" wherever they can find room.
Past that, as someone who uses ZFS on FreeBSD, ZFS is pretty fucking useful. Canonical's legal inclusion of ZFS as self-contained file system module is a big step forward for Linux.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
It's not like Stallman makes no sense. Imagine 2 societies. Society A in which you are free to enter into any contract want, and society B which is exactly like Society A except that contracts that involve slavery are not legal. Which society has more freedom?
Society A provides the additional freedom to to sell oneself into slavery, so society A is more free.
Society B lacks the freedom to to sell oneself into slavery, so society B is more free.
Which of these statements is true? It's just a pointless semantic debate that depends on your personal definition of a "free society". Is agreeing to use commercial software similar selling yourself into slavery? Not really, but I think it's still an appropriate analogy even if the magnitude of the consequences are not comparable.
It would be if he'd ever said anything of the sort, which he hasn't. His only objections to licenses like the MIT license is they open the potential for someone to produce a closed fork of your work, he has absolutely no moral objection to it, and the statement he thinks it restricts your freedom is 100% false.
Is he Stallman, or Strawman? Because half the stuff posted here about what he supposedly believes seems to fit the latter.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you want legal advice, pay my retainer.
There is a *really* big hole in the analysis.
Linux is *not* quite GPL; it, like many others, is better understood as "quasi-GPL", or QGPL.
Since pretty much the beginning, the Linux developers approved, condoned, and encouraged binary, non-GPL modules. Standard legal analysis means that this trumps the boilerplate of the license/contract.
The second serious error is arguing about the FSF position on linking. Under the rules of legal analysis, the author of a document's opinion is weighted at pretty much nothing: the author had his chance, and later comments are irrelevant. That is, there are about 7 billion people whose opinions on interpreting it come first.
Now whether distributing Linux with that module violates Sun's CDL could be an entirely different issue; I've never looked at it.
hawk, esq.
It's definitely a mess, but so is just about anything where the GPL has been around.
As for authority and jurisdiction: the Common Law of England goes back to the twelfth century, and has been passed on to substantially all English speaking countries (I forget the exceptions). The principles of construction predate this country, and are pretty much the same through the english speaking world.
Frankly, if someone wanted to litigate this, it would be an utter mess. The unwritten changes that *did* become part of the license would be binding upon all later contributions, and attach to them. It is quite possible that different parts have different licenses--and that the whole body of the kernel couldn't be distributed together. *noone* wants to open *that* can of worms . . .(except maybe redmond :)
hawk
Also, while I'm at it, to the extent that some invited, while others tolerated, aside from introducing different licenses with the problem that that creates, leads to the issue of "estoppel"--a situation in which one cannot assert a position, even if legally entitled to do so, do to his prior actions and/or the reliance of another upon those actions. (and for those who care, estoppel is an equitable principle, not a legal principle, having come from the Chancery Courts of England).
All in all, anyone who thinks that they would like the results of the litigation is deluding himself . . .
hawk
"Legal advice" is a formal term, defined by law, and it's actually illegal to offer it if you're not a lawyer in many places. Furthermore, for a lawyer, giving such advice can be constituted as establishing an attorney-client relationship, which results in legal obligations for the lawyer. So, even ignoring the time and effort, it's never free for them. I would assume there is some kind of insurance that exist specifically to indemnify lawyers in cases where they become subject to such obligations; and, naturally, that insurance is not free.
Software developers, on the other hand, don't establish this kind of relationship with the user merely by virtue of writing software for them. At least, not any more so than anyone else providing any other service does.
(I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.)
You seem to be unaware that in every case where the GPL has been litigated, it has been upheld. You talk about common law, surely you understand how this rich body of legal precedent has buttressed the strength of the GPL. As for estoppel, it's not enough for some of the copyright holders to make a habit of looking the other way. All of them would need to, and that simply hasn't happened.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.