On Aug 29, 2014, at 4:49 AM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
<clo...@igalia.com> wrote:
> On 27/08/14 14:33, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>> Maybe we could share a RFC of the summary here when we think is ready, in 
>> order to double-check our understanding of the license stuff and get more 
>> feedback about it.
> 
> On 27/08/14 16:38, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> Hi Carlos,
>> I've been dealing with ZoL and the GPL/CDDL issues for a number
>> of years for the Lustre filesystem. IANAL, but know quite a bit about
>> these issues so I'd be happy to help out if I can. 
> 
> Thanks for the offer to help.
> 
> Aron has posted our summary about the situation [1]. If you want to comment 
> on it that would be great.

In general I think this is a very well written summary of the issues.

I think it is a disservice to your argument that you equate CDDL with 
proprietary binary licenses such as those used for NVidia or Broadcom.


I would definitely seek clarification of what part of the "spirit" of the GPL 
is being violated.

I think the most important point is that CDDL is an OSI-approved _open_source_ 
license, which eliminates IMHO the biggest objection to proprietary binary 
modules, since the source for ZFS is available for debugging, modification, and 
redistribution.

The CDDL is actually a permissive license and even grants patent  
indemnification for any patents embodied in the original ZFS code (similar to 
GPLv3).  It is the GPL that restricts distributing with CDDL code and not the 
reverse (CDDL 3.6 explicitly allows this).

A little-known fact is that the CDDL even permits releasing the executable 
under a different license from the CDDL (CDDL 3.5).  For example, it would be 
conceivable to distribute the module under the GPL, but that raises the 
question of what does a GPL license on an executable mean?  Would this expose 
the distributor to e.g. patent license issues because it is no longer covered 
by the CDDL?

> Regards.
> 
> 
> [1] http://mid.gmane.org/20140829014229.GA9572@aron-laptop


Cheers, Andreas





Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to