Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Anand Mitra wrote:
One of the biggest questions around this effort would be “licensing”.
As far as our understanding goes; CDDL doesn’t restrict us from
modifying ZFS code and releasing it. However GPL and CDDL code cannot
be mixed, which implies that ZFS cannot be compiled into Linux Kernel
which is GPL. But we believe the way to get around this issue is to
build ZFS as a module with a CDDL license, it can still be loaded in
the Linux kernel. Though it would be restricted to use the non-GPL
symbols, but as long as that rule is adhered to there is no problem of
legal issues.
The legal issues surrounding GPLv2 is what constitutes the "Program"
and "work based on the Program". In the case of Linux, the "Program"
is usually the Linux kernel, and things like device drivers become a
"work based on the Program".
Conjoining of source code is not really the issue. The issue is what
constitutes the "Program".
About 10 years ago I had a long discussion with RMS and the
(presumably) injured party related to dynamically loading a module
linked to GPLv2 code into our application. RMS felt that loading that
module caused the entire work to become a "work based on the Program"
while I felt that the module was the "work based on the Program" but
that the rest of our application was not since that module could be
deleted without impact to the application.
Regardless, it has always seemed to me that (with sufficient care), a
loadable module can be developed which has no linkages to other code,
yet can still be successfully loaded and used. In this case it seems
that the module could be loaded into the Linux kernel without itself
being distributed under GPL terms.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I could be very
wrong about this.
Along these lines, it's always struck me that most of the restrictions
of the GPL fall on the entity who distrbutes the 'work' in question.
I would thinkthat distributing the source to a separate original work
for a module, leaves that responsibility up to who-ever compiles it and
loads it. This means the end-users, as long as they never distribute
what they create, are (mostly?) unaffected by the Kernel's GPL, and if
they do distribute it, the burden is on them.
Arguably that line might even be shifted from the act of compiling it,
to the act of actually loading (linking) it into the Kernel, so that
distributing a compiled module might even work the same way. I'm not so
sure about this though. Presumably compiling it before distribution
would require the use of include files from the kernel, and that seems a
grey area to me. Maybe clean room include files could be created?
-Kyle
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us,
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
