GPL violations related to combining ZFS and Linux

[zMeul]

source: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/

 

a bit of backstory:

Quote

Sun released the Z File System (ZFS) code under the Common Development and Distribution License, version 1 (CDDLv1) as part of OpenSolaris. Sun was ultimately acquired by Oracle. Community members, mostly acting non-commercially, have improved ZFS and adapted it to function with Linux, but unfortunately, CDDLv1 is incompatible with GPLv2, so distribution of binaries is not permitted (see below for details). Many community members have been frustrated for years that Oracle didn't simply relicense the code under a GPLv2-compatible license.

 

so, what's the problem?

Quote

The situation escalated last week because Canonical, Ltd. announced their plans to commercially distribute, in Ubuntu 16.04, a binary distribution of ZFS as a Linux kernel module, which adapts ZFS natively for Linux. Conservancy contacted Canonical to inform them of their GPL violation, and Canonical encouraged us to speak publicly. We're glad to do so to clarify the differing views on this issue. As you'll read below, Conservancy disagrees with Canonical's decision, and Conservancy hopes to continue dialogue with Canonical regarding their violation. We do not give up on friendly resolution of a GPL violation easily and are glad Canonical seeks to transparently discuss both sides of this issue in public.

 

Software Freedom Conservancy conclusion:

Quote

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. We have written this statement to answer, from the point of view of many key Linux copyright holders, the community questions that we've seen on this matter.

Specifically, we provide our detailed analysis of the incompatibility between CDDLv1 and GPLv2 — and its potential impact on the trajectory of free software development — below. However, our conclusion is simple: Conservancy and the Linux copyright holders in the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers believe that distribution of ZFS binaries is a GPL violation and infringes Linux's copyright. We are also concerned that it may infringe Oracle's copyrights in ZFS. As such, we again ask Oracle to respect community norms against license proliferation and simply relicense its copyrights in ZFS under a GPLv2-compatible license.

 

Canonical's Dustin Kirkland said:

Quote

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.

 

 

if Canonical goes ahead and releases ZFS as part of their next Ubuntu distribution, it's possible that Oracle will flex their "biceps" and call Canonical to court for licence violation

a result that no one would want, the common ground would be for Oracle to release ZFS binaries under GLPv2 licence - would it happen?!!? ....

 

---

 

ZFS is significantly different from any previous file system because it is more than just a file system. Combining the traditionally separate roles of volume manager and file system provides ZFS with unique advantages. The file system is now aware of the underlying structure of the disks. Traditional file systems could only be created on a single disk at a time. If there were two disks then two separate file systems would have to be created. In a traditional hardware RAID configuration, this problem was avoided by presenting the operating system with a single logical disk made up of the space provided by a number of physical disks, on top of which the operating system placed a file system. Even in the case of software RAID solutions like those provided by GEOM, the UFS file system living on top of the RAID transform believed that it was dealing with a single device. ZFS's combination of the volume manager and the file system solves this and allows the creation of many file systems all sharing a pool of available storage. One of the biggest advantages to ZFS's awareness of the physical layout of the disks is that existing file systems can be grown automatically when additional disks are added to the pool. This new space is then made available to all of the file systems. ZFS also has a number of different properties that can be applied to each file system, giving many advantages to creating a number of different file systems and datasets rather than a single monolithic file system.

 

from: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/zfs.html#zfs-differences

 

---

 

some clarification: this doesn't hinder the user's ability to install ZFS on his own

the issue is that ZFS and a Linux distro can't be packaged and distributed together 

ZFS packages for different Linux distros are already available here: http://zfsonlinux.org/

ARS Technica has a walktrough on how to use ZFS: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/ars-walkthrough-using-the-zfs-next-gen-filesystem-on-linux/

[2FA]

I love how the open source licensing is the cause of the issues, quite ironic if you ask me.

[Beskamir]

I hope this doesn't slow down ZFS implementation on Linux. I want a Linux server with ZFS, it would have so much more functionality than FreeNAS.

[Stadin6]

why cant they just be nice and re licence ZFS. i dont understand why it would be a problem  

[patrickjp93]

Since this is a zMeul article, I blame AMD.

[TechGod]

6 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Since this is a zMeul article, I blame AMD.

That and the irony of who posted this comment killed me. 

[Guest]

I can't help but see SFC as being kind of nitpicky here.

Although they're right to suggest Oracle relicence ZFS under GPL.

[Nowak]

On 2/26/2016 at 8:24 PM, ElfFriend said:

I hope this doesn't slow down ZFS implementation on Linux. I want a Linus server with ZFS, it would have so much more functionality than FreeNAS.

A Linus server? You want Linus to host files for you? 

[Albatross]

23 hours ago, Stadin6 said:

why cant they just be nice and re licence ZFS. i dont understand why it would be a problem  

 

[Misanthrope]

On 2/26/2016 at 6:36 PM, DeadEyePsycho said:

I love how the open source licensing is the cause of the issues, quite ironic if you ask me.

This is because most people don't understand how GPL v2.0 works actually: It's a licence in the sence that it legally compels you to share your source code. It seeks to do the opposite of a copyright licence (hence commonly referred to as copyleft) in which you cannot use the code if you're not willing to disclose any changes to the source code you might make for all to see. This ensures that people don't kill open source projects outright by just changing the licence, seeking a patent and then seek damages and action against anyone who uses the open source version.

 

What Canonical is doing is basically making themselves liable by taking copyrighted code (not strictly copyrighted but declared incompatible regardless) and including it with their distro. 

[Misanthrope]

23 hours ago, Stadin6 said:

why cant they just be nice and re licence ZFS. i dont understand why it would be a problem  

Oracle is actually more likely to do the opposite.

[Sakkura]

23 hours ago, Stadin6 said:

why cant they just be nice and re licence ZFS. i dont understand why it would be a problem  

 

12 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Oracle is actually more likely to do the opposite.

Yeah, this is Oracle. Remember what they did to OpenOffice. 

[Beskamir]

3 hours ago, Daring said:

A Linus server? You want Linus to host files for you? 

Woops. Well to be fair Linus Torvald did create Linux so technically it could be considered a Linus server But yeah I screwed up... guess I have to fix it.

[Misanthrope]

3 hours ago, Daring said:

A Linus server? You want Linus to host files for you? 

I've seen what he does to servers. Awesome for videos, not really safe for data.

[Fetzie]

6 hours ago, Daring said:

A Linus server? You want Linus to host files for you? 

No fucking way

 

Not after seeing this arrangement of video thumbnails on Vessel a while back:

Video 1 in the list: ALL OF OUR DATA IS GONE

Video 2 in the list: Want Safe Data Storage? Get it as far away from me as possible!)

 

[2FA]

8 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

This is because most people don't understand how GPL v2.0 works actually: It's a licence in the sence that it legally compels you to share your source code. It seeks to do the opposite of a copyright licence (hence commonly referred to as copyleft) in which you cannot use the code if you're not willing to disclose any changes to the source code you might make for all to see. This ensures that people don't kill open source projects outright by just changing the licence, seeking a patent and then seek damages and action against anyone who uses the open source version.

 

What Canonical is doing is basically making themselves liable by taking copyrighted code (not strictly copyrighted but declared incompatible regardless) and including it with their distro. 

Oh I understand how the GPL works, but thanks for explaining it to others that don't.