How is this possible, legally? Based on my basic understanding of the ZFS license, it's not possible to legally distribute ZFS and GPL code (linux kernel) together.
It is fine if it is a kernel module.
Matthew Garret (a kernel developer and thus a shared copyright holder of the kernel) is of the opinion that linking a binary ZFS module is not legal:
https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/700021939708915712 https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/700073945064611841 https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/700074164435091456
As a copyright holder, he is potentially in the position of suing canonical over this (and he doesn't like them very much, so he just might)
That said, Matt Garret's Captain Ahab-like zeal of keeping one of the most useful pieces of open-source code away from Linux, while taking potshots at Ubuntu, is really off-putting. I guess I'm not so pure.
Which is why I run my file server with BSD.
I'm really excited to see ZFS functional in 16.04, and in fact, that got me to install the pre-beta just to mess with it.
Your response to a large company violating the license that Linux is distributed under is to blame Matthew Garret for pointing it out?
On the other, there's equal opinions that this (or the way the did this) is -not- a violation.
So I don't think it's particularly fair to reach for your pitchfork, either.
Besides, his response had almost nothing to do with Ubuntu, it was "Garret's zeal in trying to keep ZFS off Linux" regardless of distro (which is true). "While taking potshots at Ubuntu" (which is also true, and on issues far wider than "including ZFS".
So far, Matthew Garrett has yet to claim that any attorney said this is a problem. The only claim he has made (after I got him to clarify what was said) is that he met some attorneys who said that they were not absolutely sure that there is no problem. There are likely attorneys out there that make similar claims about the GPL software in general, so I really am not that concerned that he found a few attorneys that said that they were not sure.
The GPL states in clear terms what's allowed and what isn't.
It doesn't matter whether you believe a specific use case should make it ok to violate the license or not.
It's like laws. Whether you personally believe they are just or not is not a reason why they should or should not apply to you.
The GPL does not trump copyright law in determining what is a derivative work.
> It's like laws.
A little bit. But its less like laws than actual laws are, and it depends on the actual laws; it doesn't have the power to redefine them.
Or is he saying a binary module compiled from that source is non-distributable?
If the source is redistributable then a DKMS kernel module could be used because it distributes source that is built by the end user.
However, since Canonical cannot relicense the ZFS code to a GPL-compatible license (since they are not the copyright holder), if they distribute the ZFS module, they would be in violation of the GPL (and thus lose their rights under the GPL to the kernel code).
Whether that's actually true appears to be up for a debate depending upon whether or not a binary module is distribution or not, which is why he's suggesting he'll talk to the FSF about possible recourse.
If he wins, binary video card and wifi drivers will all vaporize, too.
nVidia would probably love to actually have a good excuse to not support free versions of Linux and only have to support closed, commercial ones.
https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/700073945064611841
that zfs was "merged into the kernel tree," but so far as I know the GPL doesn't dictate that things can't be stored in the same location together. There are no official GPL certified directory structures, etc.
https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/31357.html
His argument about CDDL Linux kernel modules using non-GPL exported symbols being a problem is clearly FUD. Specifically, Fear of a violation; Uncertainty of a violation; and Doubt that there is no violation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_in_Userspace
EDIT: Looking through the comments in the article, it's being suggested this isn't using the FUSE implementation of ZFS, and that somehow it's part of the kernel. Not sure how they've legally managed to do that!
EDIT 2: Looks like it's a kernel module, as other comments here suggest.
Answer: They haven't. :) They've just created a GPLv2 violation.
As far as I understood, the GPL only applies for code that is directly linked to it. A call to an external library (e.g. a kernel module) wouldn't necessarily apply. The code is being delivered as separate binaries.
Yes. Your understanding isn't correct.
With NVIDIA, there's this complicated dance where you download source code from nVidia for the kernel module, then compile it on your own machine and use it -- you aren't violating copyright because you don't distribute the kernel module that you compiled for yourself on your own machine.
But that kernel module does indeed violate GPLv2, and you can't distribute it legally, and neither could Canonical or nVidia (which is why they do the dance above instead).
If that's the case, then why doesn't the FSF sue Linux kernel developers over licence violations? There are clearly pre-compiled binary blobs distributed along with the mainline kernel (otherwise there would be no need for the Linux-libre project to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-libre ). There's little point having a licence if there's no consequences for breaking it.
I suspect they don't because it's not a simple case, and that such a measure would be somewhat counterproductive for their cause.
I don't understand. The Linux kernel developers hold the copyright on the kernel. If someone sues someone else, it's them --- the kernel developers -- who have standing to be doing the suing. They didn't give their copyright to the FSF merely as a result of choosing to use the FSF's license.
See also, from a kernel developer: https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/700074164435091456
They are not permitted by the license; for them to be violations, they would have to be derivative works that require a license.
If you have a reference to copyright case law in any jurisdiction holding that to be the case, that would be interesting.
I think its clear that certain parties (including the FSF) would like this to be perceived to be a violation; it also seems fairly clear that this type of act has been a fairly established practice around Linux, but that those with that view have not take action to vindicate it in court, perhaps because while they'd like it to be perceived to be the case, they have little confidence that courts would agree with them, and the one thing they'd like less than active disagreement with some people engaging in the practice that they don't like is a black-and-white ruling vindicating the ongoing practice and rejecting the FSF view on the legal requirements.
My understanding is that it isn't under the theory of what counts as a derivative work requiring a license (and, thus, what is subject to GPLv2 in the first place) espoused by the FSF, however, I believe that view has been hotly disputed as to its accuracy under US copyright law (at least) for about as long as the GPL has existed and never been tested in court.
The FSF, in general -- as is unsurprising for entity that relies on maximally leveraging copyright protections to achieve its ends -- holds to a fairly maximalist view of the legal rights of copyright owners.
Here's the copyright file from the relevant commit to the Xenial kernel tree:
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git/diff/z...
The majority of the code in the ZFS on Linux port comes from
OpenSolaris which has been released under the terms of the CDDL
open source license. This includes the core ZFS code, libavl,
libnvpair, libefi, libunicode, and libutil.It's not. Canonical has blatantly violated the GPL before and gotten away with it.