mirror of
https://git.proxmox.com/git/mirror_zfs
synced 2025-10-31 17:14:00 +00:00
114 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
114 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
From: Chris Dunlap <cdunlap@llnl.gov>
|
|
To: tak1@llnl.gov (James Tak)
|
|
Cc: rogers11@llnl.gov (Leah Rogers), garlick@llnl.gov (Jim Garlick),
|
|
mgary@llnl.gov (Mark Gary), kimcupps@llnl.gov (Kim Cupps)
|
|
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:37:07 -0700
|
|
Subject: CDDL/GPL licensing issues for ZFS Linux port
|
|
|
|
James,
|
|
|
|
We want to port Sun's Zettabyte File System (ZFS) to Linux and
|
|
ultimately redistribute the source code of our work. We've been
|
|
talking with Leah about this and have a meeting scheduled with you
|
|
for this coming Thursday at 2pm. I just wanted to give you a summary
|
|
before the meeting of what we're proposing.
|
|
|
|
ZFS is part of OpenSolaris which is licensed under the Common
|
|
Development and Distribution License (CDDL):
|
|
|
|
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt
|
|
|
|
The Linux kernel is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL)
|
|
(specifically, under version 2 of the license only):
|
|
|
|
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
|
|
|
|
While these are both Open-Source licenses, the Free Software Foundation
|
|
(FSF) states they are incompatible with one another:
|
|
|
|
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html
|
|
|
|
"[CDDL] is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;
|
|
it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the
|
|
GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained,
|
|
while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it
|
|
terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents.
|
|
So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL
|
|
cannot legally be linked together."
|
|
|
|
As an aside, Sun is reportedly considering releasing OpenSolaris under
|
|
GPL3 (i.e., the upcoming version 3 of the GNU General Public License):
|
|
|
|
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/hp_and_sun_partnering_around
|
|
|
|
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060130-6074.html
|
|
|
|
http://news.com.com/Sun+considers+GPL+3+license+for+Solaris/2100-1016_3-6032893.html
|
|
|
|
Since the GPL3 has not been finalized, it is unclear whether
|
|
incompatibilities will exist between GPL2 and GPL3.
|
|
|
|
Linus Torvalds (the original creator of Linux) describes his views
|
|
on the licensing of Linux kernel modules in the following email thread:
|
|
|
|
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules.html
|
|
|
|
Most of this thread is in regards to proprietary closed-source
|
|
binary-only modules for Linux. Linus generally considers modules
|
|
written for Linux using the kernel infrastructures to be derived
|
|
works of Linux, even if they don't copy any existing Linux code.
|
|
However, he specifically singles out drivers and filesystems ported
|
|
from other operating systems as not being derived works:
|
|
|
|
"It would be rather preposterous to call the Andrew FileSystem a
|
|
'derived work' of Linux, for example, so I think it's perfectly
|
|
OK to have a AFS module, for example."
|
|
|
|
"The original binary-only modules were for things that were
|
|
pre-existing works of code, i.e., drivers and filesystems ported
|
|
from other operating systems, which thus could clearly be argued
|
|
to not be derived works..."
|
|
|
|
Based on this, it seems our port of Sun's ZFS filesystem to Linux
|
|
would not be considered a derived work of Linux, and therefore not
|
|
covered by the GPL. The issue of the CDDL/GPL license incompatibility
|
|
becomes moot. As such, we should be able to redistribute our changes
|
|
to ZFS in source-code form licensed under the CDDL since this will
|
|
be a derived work of the original ZFS code. There seems to be some
|
|
dissent as to whether a binary module could be redistributed as well,
|
|
but that issue does not concern us. In this instance, we are only
|
|
interested in redistribution of our work in source-code form.
|
|
|
|
-Chris
|
|
|
|
To: Chris Dunlap <cdunlap@llnl.gov>
|
|
From: James Tak <tak1@llnl.gov>
|
|
Subject: Re: CDDL/GPL licensing issues for ZFS Linux port
|
|
Cc: rogers11@llnl.gov (Leah Rogers), garlick@llnl.gov (Jim Garlick),
|
|
mgary@llnl.gov (Mark Gary), kimcupps@llnl.gov (Kim Cupps)
|
|
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:53:01 -0700
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,
|
|
As per our discussion today, the ZFS port you are proposing releasing under
|
|
the CDDL license should be o.k. since it is a derivative work of the
|
|
original ZFS module (under CDDL) and is therefore also subject to CDDL
|
|
under the distribution terms of that license. While the issue of linking
|
|
has been greatly debated in the OS community, I think it is fair to say in
|
|
this instance the ZFS port is not a derivative work of Linux and thus not
|
|
subject to the GPL. Furthermore, it shouldn't be a problem especially
|
|
since even Linus Torvald has expressed that modules such as yours are not
|
|
derived works of Linux.
|
|
|
|
Let me know if you have any further questions at x27274. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Regards,
|
|
James
|
|
|
|
James S. Tak
|
|
Assistant Laboratory Counsel for Intellectual Property
|
|
Office of Laboratory Counsel
|
|
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
|
|
phone: (925) 422-7274
|
|
fax: (925) 423-2231
|
|
tak1@llnl.gov
|