FSF States Again that ZFS Cannot Be Released with Linux
-
@wirestyle22 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
The media fact checking? You sure?
The thing is, all of the parties involved are either stating that the GPL is not granted (FSF who makes the GPL, Oracle who refuses to grant it) or one third party who is trying to violate it and isn't stating anything (Canonical.) There is no reason to believe that Oracle has GPL'd ZFS and told no one, that makes no sense.
I agree that it makes no sense but not on the grounds that the media would've released it. The media is pretty much responsible for click-bait. They've been doing it for years.
No one is talking about the media, though. Oracle, FSF and Ubuntu are who have not released it, but HAVE stated that it has not released.
-
@mlnews said:
The FSF or Free Software Foundation, the writers of the GPL or Copyleft License, have stated yet again what everyone already knows.... that the upcoming release of Ubuntu 16.04 with ZFS is a violation of Linux' license and they need to either stop or they need Oracle to release OpenZFS under the GPL or a GPL compatible license. Currently OpenZFS is released under Oracle's own CDDL which prevents it from being packaged with Linux.
It is the CDDL that has stopped ZFS from being included with Linux up until this time. Why Canonical suddenly feels that it is not bound by this we have not yet heard stated.
I don't get how they thought they could get away with it.
-
@johnhooks said:
I don't get how they thought they could get away with it.
Yeah, I'm very confused. For over a decade, no ZFS on Linux solely because you can't legally do it then... with nothing changing, they just decide to release it and hope that no one says anything?
They are going to force Oracle to sue them, and the FSF will back Oracle. It will be bad.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Is it possible that they licensed it from Oracle?
If they did, we will find out in a few days when it releases because doing so would mean that Oracle accidentally GPL'd it and... that would be that. Seems like 99.9999999% unlikely. The whole point of the FSF is stating that Oracle hasn't licensed ZFS under the GPL. If they had, you'd think someone would say it (and leak it).
It seems like though, I read that it is OpenZFS being used... Here's one such article: (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/26/canonical_in_zfsonlinux_gpl_violation_spat/) and perhaps another... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/
Edit: It would seem that "openZFS" is oracle's ZFS that has been licensed with the CDDL. I thought it was a completely separate entity.
-
@dafyre said:
It seems like though, I read that it is OpenZFS being used... Here's one such article: (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/26/canonical_in_zfsonlinux_gpl_violation_spat/) and perhaps another... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/
Yes, OpenZFS is the CDDL'd version of ZFS. ZFS proper is not open at all, OpenZFS is CDDL. Neither can be used.
-
@dafyre said:
Edit: It would seem that "openZFS" is oracle's ZFS that has been licensed with the CDDL. I thought it was a completely separate entity.
Correct. OpenZFS is the CDDL'd one that we always talk about. The one in FreeBSD, for example.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Edit: It would seem that "openZFS" is oracle's ZFS that has been licensed with the CDDL. I thought it was a completely separate entity.
Correct. OpenZFS is the CDDL'd one that we always talk about. The one in FreeBSD, for example.
Why can OpenZFS be used with FreeBSD? Is it because it uses the older GPL v1 license?
-
@dafyre said:
Why can OpenZFS be used with FreeBSD? Is it because it uses the older GPL v1 license?
FreeBSD is BSD licensed. BSD licensing is very different from GPL.
-
It is not "used with" that is the issue. ZFS has always been available for Linux. ZFS cannot be "packaged with" Linux, because the licenses have to be compatible. You have always been able to get Ubuntu and install OpenZFS on your own, the license doesn't conflict when used that way.
-
Could it be going into the nonfree repository and getting a separate license agreement to accept? Canonical made Ubuntu a household name by including other things like this. Anyone else remember having to mess with codecs?
