Well - If there was to be a plan, it would have to start with RH legal making that determination would it not?
Could FESCO or the other council (sorry it escapes me ATM) take this up as a meeting item? Is it worth presenting for a legal determination? In my mind, if it was approved by legal we would have to; A - determine with we were going to start building a kernel with nodebug turned off AND if it needs to be maintained as a separate kernel package to make sure that the kernel version tracked is supported by ZFS. B - Be prepared to support a filesystem that needs modules build by DKMS C - Find maintainers ( I would volunteer - I'd have to learn packaging) D - Plan what release/testing, etc.... E - Decide if it when/if it would be supported in the installer and make those changes as well F - do other stuff... Should this be presented on another list? Good Discussion all... On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Simon Farnsworth <si...@farnz.org.uk> wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2016, at 11:39, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanz...@gnome.org> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:24 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > >>> likely i did much more research than you can even imagine long > >>> before > >>> that thread started > >> > >> I find this challenging to believe. > >> > >>> CDDL is incompatible with GPLv2 - period > >> > >> Did you read the web site at all? The argument is that it can be used > >> as a kernel module without constituting a derived work. Many developers > >> believe this is not a GPL violation. Many believe otherwise. This is a > >> well-known, open controversy. It's to be expected that different sets > >> of lawyers will have different opinions on the risk depending on > >> business requirements and their company's risk profile. > >> > >> Michael > > > > As far as I know, that's why the kernel has symbol export feature to > > indicate which ones are covered by the GPL-ness (GPL_ONLY symbol > > export). > > > The distinction between EXPORT_SYMBOL and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is minimal. > The theory [1] is that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL indicates that the kernel > community believes that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbols are so core to Linux that > you cannot use them without creating a derived work under copyright law. > Thus using an EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbol from a GPL-incompatible module is > deliberate infringement, with all that that implies in terms of the legal > system; using an EXPORT_SYMBOL symbol from a GPL-incompatible module > *might* be non-infringing (if the work using it is legally separate in > terms of copyright law), or might be accidental infringement (if you didn't > realise what you were doing carried legal risk). > > In all cases, you need to talk to your copyright expert lawyer about > distributing GPL-incompatible modules for the Linux kernel. Copyright law > has some sharp edges, and you can get hurt if you ignore them; for Fedora, > Red Hat Inc take on that liability, and they'll not want to do anything > that puts them at risk of harm. > > [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/154602/ > > -- > Simon Farnsworth > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
