The Software Freedom Conservancy argues that not only is zfs. To me that feels like a bit of a stretch, and one could make the opposite argument. By virtue of the fact that zfs. Further, it's likely that only if ZFS were distributed as a changeset against the Linux source code rather than buildable as a distinct module would it possibly be a derived work of Linux.
The statically vs. LeoPanthera on Feb 14, parent prev next [—]. I'm surprised there isn't a one-click way for the user to build their own kernel with ZFS inside it. As long as I don't distribute the resulting binary there should be no legal implications. There is at least on Debian - enable contrib and use apt. The problem is that neither your install or recover CD won't have it enabled by default, so if you have a problem, your hard-drive won't mount.
So extend the script to build you a recovery ISO or USB image too, and then insist that you reboot and test the recovery image. In general though, just pulling down a dkms zfs module into any working recovery image via apt should work.
But not if you don't have net access [ed: or a lan apt mirror.. So suddenly becoming ardent advocates for the benefits of licence incompatibility is probably to be unlikely to fly before a judge as a theory of harm. This conclusion is the same as the one Canonical reached, but the means by which I got there are very different. The above analysis is all from the point of view of the Linux kernel compliance activities.
However, with ZFS, there is another copyright holder: Oracle. The principle of the GPL is that we have collaborative development. If one party is working on certain functionality — say, advanced file system technology — then that should be available to all. That is a tangible loss. OK, so I definitely accept the principle of us wanting collaborative development. Secondly, you appear to be conflating patent and copyright. That relates to patents, and patents would prevented this reuse in Linux even if the code was proprietary.
IMHO, the goal of GPL is to give users the choice and freedom to use and tinker and improve their code if they so choose. Heh, yes, sorry. Apologies to Andreas. That means that if your additions are made in separate and independent files that do not contain the original code, you do not have to release it under the CDDL.
In addition, you must include a copy of the CDDL with any source code that you distribute. For each modification that you make, you must identify yourself as the modifier by including a notice in your modified files. The CDDL is considered a weak copyleft license. For that purpose, you are required to distribute the program — including any modified and extended versions of it — under the same license. This means that using such a copyleft licensed component in your code, will require you to release your entire program as an open source.
Essentially, it means to distribute the original or modified software under the same license that it originally carried. If you distribute your software in its executable form, you are bound to include the source code form but the executable can be distributed either under the CDDL or under a compatible license.
Yes, it does. Any contributor grants you the right to use the patents that his contribution embodies. CDDL takes a very clear stand on patents — you can use, modify, and redistribute CDDL licensed components without any concerns about any patents that the code contributors might hold on the contributed technology.
CDDL version 1. That means that you have to make its source code available. I don't like it, but I am not a lawyer and I have come to realize that law is so unlike how they teach you in the mundane classes that my best bet is to usually assume that whatever I think it should be like is really wrong. But in order to do that they first have to demonstrate that ZoL is a derivative works of the Linux Kernel.
The paper simply states the conclusion that all western legal systems let courts follow the spirit instead of the letter of legal documents to prevent injustice - it doesn't back it up with anything and that is far different from the law that I know.
The only time I've seen a court openly rewrite an unambiguous term of a contract is when the result of the literal reading would be absurd which implies the people who wrote it would be shocked. I don't know copyright licenses, but I presume the bar is even higher there, because authors have a fundamental right to be selfish and withhold their work from anyone, so I can't see it being called injust for a license to fail to give someone permission to copy under whatever circumstance.
But the damages angle accomplishes the same thing. If you copy without permission, but the copyright holder isn't hurt by your doing so, you can't lose a lawsuit over it. If your copying accomplished the same goals of the copyright holder as if you had done what you had to to get permission, it would be hard for the copyright holder to win a lawsuit.
Is that true? Copyright infringement carries statutory damages in several jurisdictions. I can't recall ever hearing about someone suing for statutory damages for copyright violation. All those high-profile "piracy" cases where individuals were threatened with fines on the order of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for copying a handful of songs or videos were founded on statutory damages. Of course, such cases require solid evidence and generate a lot of negative PR, so more recently they've been focusing on pressuring ISPs into serving as their extra-judicial enforcement wing and "persuading" individuals to settle rather than suffer the legal expense of defending themselves.
That kind of copying isn't usually the kind that authors of open source code worry about, but it's certainly a valid example of statutory damages being real. I'm not sure what you're trying to say by there being no such thing as actual damage from making a copy, but suffice it to say that people regularly win sums in court much larger than statutory damages to compensate them for the damage done to them by other people making copies. You still need to persuade a court that there has been a copyright violation though, in distributing a derivative of CDDLed and GPLed works.
Interesting stuff. Likewise, in the UK, copyright infringement for gain which is what Canonical are doing, and they are based in the British Isles is also a criminal offense. Er, which one am I?
Aging developer lawyer? If the zfs. BSD-licenced adaption layers. We have this case occasionally in the Linux world. Or strip them out and ship my own copy, with just the interface. I don't think anybody argues that the ZFS code itself - on its own in splendid isolation - or, at least, the code of the other favourite modules featuring in the many previous discussions on this broader topic - Nvidia drivers and so on, also supposedly kernel-neutral - are derived works of Linux.
But then, that's not what the derived work discussion is all about. This has previously been discussed in the context of the Nvidia drivers which supposedly use the same code as the ones used on Windows, and so people like to claim that the Nvidia drivers could never be derived works of Linux.
But the derived works discussion is not about those drivers in their "inert" state. When considering the GPL, I like to consider the "view source" scenario: you're running Linux combined with the ZFS implementation delivered by Canonical; Linux is GPL-licensed and thus imposes certain conditions about it being combined with other things and the source code for the result being available for further distribution under the GPL's terms ; therefore, the complete source code for that running system must be available to the end-user.
Can this really be satisfied if the source of the ZFS implementation cannot actually be obtained and redistributed under the GPL? Naturally, people may argue just as they do with the Nvidia drivers that it's the user who combines the works and that no-one is actually distributing the combination.
0コメント