On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 01:19:39PM +0300, Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 07:50:03PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > Can someone explain if there's an -actual- non-free dependency that > > these packages have, or if it is just the somewhat-incompatibility > > between ZFS CDDL and Linux GPL? > > Unless they manage to pull in some Oracle code (zfs encryption and > dtrace probes come to mind), ZFS on Linux is a free (as in freedom) > software. > But, since Sun Microsystems deliberately designed CDDL to be > incompatible with GPL2 (happened in 2004 IIRC), you can not ship ZFS > binary modules with the Linux kernel, for instance ([1]). > What you can do is to ship source code, and 'ask' the user to build such > modules for themselves (hence the need of dkms or module-assistant). > > [1] https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/FAQ
Yes, zfs-dkms and zfs-initramfs is a little more work that plain apt install. This gives some of the details: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=861263 which explains thusly: “> Forgive my ignorance, but why will it not happen? The legal status of ZFSonLinux was discussed by the FTP team and DPL over a long period, with input from legal counsel, resulting in a decision to put it in the 'contrib' section. That decision is unlikely to be revisited soon. ” and further from https://blog.halon.org.uk/2016/01/on-zfs-in-debian/#comment-13678 : Martin (February 28, 2017 at 6:14 pm): > I understand the decision to distribute ZFS as source > only, but could you elaborate on why the package is > going into contrib rather than main? Neil McGovern (February 28, 2017 at 6:26 pm): > Sure – it’s about the promise that Debian makes to > the end user. Basically, by it being in main you’re > legally able to redistribute the end product (along with > source). With a CDDL module and a GPL2+ kernel, > that becomes – at best – unclear. So, packages are even provided such as zfs-initramfs and zfs-dkms to make the process largely painless, for which we be grateful.
