On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 08:00 -0800, Jon Wahlmann wrote: > > Unfortunately this will never perform as well as a kernelspace fs so it > > is unlikely to be picked up by anyone for serious use. But as ZFS is > > under the CDDL which is (perhaps intentionally) incompatible with the > > GPL it seems that a native port is unlikely. > > This has me wondering again. There's always been a gray area related > to using modules with different licenses than the Linux kernel. I > imagine at some point some "third party" will produce a kernel module > only version of ZFS for Linux. Obviously, it won't be available for > inclusion in the kernel itself but they may produce something that > stays in sync with the latest kernel releases. Heck, I'd be inclined > to try it myself, if I had the time an energy. >
The only gray area I've seen are those raised by hard-core "everything should be free no matter what" OSS advocates or those that only understand software and can't begin to wrap their heads around legal documents (Note: I don't fault such folks for not getting it [the legal mumbo-jumbo] - but I do fault them for not finding out from someone who does what the issues are before spewing FUD, etc as matter of fact.). >From my understanding, there is absolutely nothing wrong or infringing when using a proprietary module with the Linux kernel *UNLESS*: 1. You statically link the proprietary or license incompatible module with the Linux kernel and then release the resulting binary/source to the public. (violation of both GPL and module licenses) 2. The module requires changes to the Linux kernel code and those changes are not released into the public domain, but instead require an alternative license other than the GPL to have or use. (violation of Linux GPL license) If there were, then the Linux kernel would be useless with much of the software in the world. You would not legally be able to run any proprietary software at all on a Linux system because you'd be in violation of one or multiple licenses. I've always held that the messages (e.g. - when using a NVIDIA video driver) about running a tainted kernel were nonsense. Tainted how? Nothing modified the GPL'd kernel code. Nothing in the NVIDIA license says I can't use the NVIDIA module with Linux (Umm, it was *made* for use with Linux.) I'm not releasing a statically linked version of Linux and NVIDIA code. It's all FUD. That's my opinion anyway, from reading the GPL and a fair amount of law mumbo-jumbo. PGA -- Paul G. Allen BSIT/SE Owner/Sr. Engineer Random Logic Consulting www.randomlogic.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
