Big News for ZFS on Linux
dtrace.org
dtrace.org
Indeed, Conservancy believes this situation is one
battle in a larger proxy war by those who seek to
limit the scope of strong copyleft generally.
I also fear about what Oracle could do, as they are copyright holders of parts of Linux (btrfs) and might decide to make things difficult for Canonical. Oracle has misused copyleft aggressively in the past, trying to strong-arm people into buying GPL exceptions for MySQL when they didn't need one, although in this case, they probably do have a good case for why a GPL exception would be necessary.
$ yaourt -S zfs-git
https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=zfs-g...
It seems like literally something as simple as defining an extra directory on the installation medium for which all files will be loaded into the kernel at startup. Or allowing the installer to be started from a live environment, so you could download/build sources and load the module and then start installation.
Perhaps it can't be Canonical who actually writes and maintains the script, but it seems like a problem you could hack around fairly easily while maintaining plausible deniability.
I feel for the SFC on this issue, but I wonder what they realistically expect the outcome will be. Ubuntu stops distributing ZFS? Ubuntu ships a means to install ZFS from source (which doesn't remove the infringement, just shifts it)? Oracle convinces everybody to change the license? The last seems wildly unlikely, so I just don't quite understand what they are trying to do.
[1] Of course, AUR is a community oriented repository, not part of Arch proper, so there is not really any question of Arch being involved at all. But you get the point...
Users already have (by the nature of copyright law) and are explicitly in the GPL given the right to do whatever they want with the code, short of distributing it.
First, it's not without precedent. qmail's license prohibited binary redistribution (as well as modified source code distribution), and Debian's solution was packages that, as part of the install, patched, built, and installed qmail from sources on the target machine.
Secondly, this is already an option. The ZFS on Linux project [0] provides packages which do exactly this, by:
1. Distributing kernel sources and building them against the currently install(ed) kernel(s) via dkms. This is actually a common mechanism for module distribution, and is also used by Virtualbox, or anyone else distributing kernel extensions, closed-source or not, which aren't included in the mainline kernel.
2. Providing the userspace binaries to interact with the custom-built ZFS kernel modules built on behalf of the user in #1.
The difference here is Ubuntu distributing binary versions of the modules in the base install, which is important for things like installing on ZFS root, or accessing ZFS filesystems during install.
> It's not without precedent. [...] Debian's solution [for qmail]
> was packages that, as part of the install, patched, built, and
> installed qmail from sources on the target machine.
At the time qmail was shipped in Debian's non-free section, and the resulting binary wasn't being linked to a GPL codebase to get around linking clauses.
So I can't see how this has anything to do with what's happening with ZFS here.
Ah yes, the bootstrapping problem.
We can bootstrap much more difficult things. For example booting from kernel source: http://www.bellard.org/tcc/tccboot.html
Don't ship ZFS on it.
The overwhelming majority of users reliant on a CD-ROM drive to install a distro do not need nor want ZFS on their system.
Are you?
What?
Certainly not everyone needs it, but I think there's a definite use case for ZFS (or btrfs, or any similar filesystem) on an ordinary desktop system, even if the user doesn't know what ZFS is.
I will have a good laugh if Ubuntu is porting it over as a "headline feature".
OpenSolaris had that as part of its Gnome file manager. It's even open source.
[1] http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/are-gplv2-and-cddl-incompa...
"Nominal statutory damages, divided among the thousands of copyright holders entitled to equal shares, scarcely lift the matter above the level of damnum absque injuria."
They have already published commits to Linux under the GPL, they cannot just "take it back". The worst Oracle does is stop contributing to the kernel, which they rarely do to begin with. The "worst" Oracle can do is sue third parties that violate the GPL on their part of the kernel - which would predominantly be proprietary vendors.
"1.3. Covered Software means (a) the Original Software, or (b) Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original Software with files containing Modifications, in each case including portions thereof."
"Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License."
The binary module they are distributing is the 'covered software' and they are making the source code and their modifications to that source code available via CDDL. They appear to be meeting their CDDL license burden.
In other words, Linux Kernel developers could sue because the GPL license terms aren't met, but Oracle couldn't sue because the CDDL license terms are being met.
As Oracle has contributed to the Linux kernel as well, they are in a position to sue over GPL violation.
Additionally, if I understand correctly, in order to have a chance to sue, Oracle would have to show that the code in question violates their actual copyright, which is only in code that the wrote/contributed. So Oracle would likely need to prove that the ZFS code interfaces/touches/uses their copyrighted code, otherwise they would not have standing (in the US). I have no clue if that interaction occurs or not.
Isn't that good?
But it's not a binary blob - the source code is supplied with the binary.
Besides it should be possible to easily distribute third party binary drivers for Linux and have some reasonable expectation that they work. The fact that you can't is one of the biggest reasons Android updates suck so much.
The situation with the nvidia driver relies on the part of the API that the Linux devs have claimed is not GPL. When nvidia wants more API, the Linux devs have pushed back against that:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/10/11/1918251/alan-cox-to...
I don't know how this compares to ZFS. But regardless, there's another thing at play here, the method of distribution. Nvidia doesn't ship Linux together with its blob. I think that if nvidia did that, we would have a situation more analogous to ZFS + Ubuntu.
You are referring to symbols marked EXPORT_SYMBOL that the kernel will use when linking non-GPL code as part of the module load. ZFSOnLinux uses only these symbols. The kernel will not make symbols marked EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL available to it and there are no hacks to access them through the presently GPL licensed compatibility layer. Code that bypasses this when built as a standalone module will not be accepted by the project.
However, there are other, valid examples like Linksys routers shipping with binary drivers for Broadcom NICs.
Can anyone point me out why this argument is wrong? Googling around for this I was actually suprised that propietary kernel modules are in fact a debated topic (obviously to little success of the opponents), but doesn't the practical existence of propietary kernel modules at least show that no-one has had a problem with this for a long time, legally speaking?
Nothing really prevents the LiveUSB distribution from writing to itself under ext3, build the ZFS during installation, then use the binary compiled from this process to set it up on the actual SSDs/HDDs. This is legally essentially the same binary blob Nvidia driver as you aren't distributing the binary.
I'm assuming the reason this wasn't done was due to the convenience + you'd need to setup the USB like:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LiveCD/Persistence
But once you compiled it on the persistent partition, you'd be able to perform the installation just fine legally and technically is my understanding.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/10/11/1918251/alan-cox-to...
I don't know what the situation is with ZFS with regards to the APIs that it's using.
There is also the question of how the software is being combined and distributed. If you receive ZFS and Linux as a "single work", which in SFC's view Ubuntu is doing by putting it all together in a neat little binary package, then the copyleft might activate.
It also pays to be precise and lack thereof is why so many people are confused and conflicted about the licensing.
The Canonical Kernel Team has added the 'OpenZFS on Linux' source-code [0] in the ./zfs/ directory of the Ubuntu 4.4+ kernel tree [1].
The ZFS modules are built using the OpenZFS on Linux project's stand-alone build tools.
As I understand it from reading the code and following some ZFS project developer discussions the OpenZFS on Linux code is partitioned into common parts that are largely unchanged on all the operating systems it is ported to, plus (in this case) a Linux-specific glue layer that translates the Solaris API to the Linux API in the Solaris Porting Layer (SPL). Each part is built as separate modules; there are 8:
/lib/modules/${VERSION}/kernel/zfs/avl/zavl.ko
/lib/modules/${VERSION}/kernel/zfs/nvpair/znvpair.ko
/lib/modules/${VERSION}/kernel/zfs/spl/spl.ko
/lib/modules/${VERSION}/kernel/zfs/splat/splat.ko
/lib/modules/${VERSION}/kernel/zfs/unicode/zunicode.ko
/lib/modules/${VERSION}/kernel/zfs/zcommon/zcommon.ko
/lib/modules/${VERSION}/kernel/zfs/zfs/zfs.ko
/lib/modules/${VERSION}/kernel/zfs/zpios/zpios.ko
$ find . -type f | while read F; do echo "${F} $( modinfo -F license ${F})"; done | sort
./avl/zavl.ko CDDL
./nvpair/znvpair.ko CDDL
./splat/splat.ko GPL
./spl/spl.ko GPL
./unicode/zunicode.ko CDDL
./zcommon/zcommon.ko CDDL
./zfs/zfs.ko CDDL
./zpios/zpios.ko GPL
As can be seen above the 'glue' layer (SPL) is under the GPL. 'zfs.ko' depends on 'spl.ko' (needs to dynamically link to it at run-time):
$ modinfo -F depends zfs/zfs.ko
spl,znvpair,zunicode,zcommon,zavl
This suggests to me that any conflict between the CDDL and GPLv2 occurs in the OpenZFS on Linux port/project itself, not between the Linux kernel project GPLv2 license and the OpenZFS on Linux CDDL.
In other words, if there is a violation of the GPLv2 as Software Freedom Conservatory (SFC) claim, it occurs in the distribution of the OpenZFS on Linux binaries themselves, since that will combine both CDDL and GPLv2 binaries, even if that was distributed as a stand-alone package (e.g. OpenZFSonLinux.deb) - regardless of whether those binary modules are aggregated with the Linux kernel or not.
I'm pointing this out since most commentary I've read seems to assume that when "GPLv2" is mentioned it means the Linux kernel licence, whereas this analysis suggests the conflict is in the OpenZFS on Linux project's use of CDDL and GPLv2 if distributed in binary form.
There may be an additional viewpoint: that the code in 'spl.ko' (The Solaris Porting Layer) is a derivative of the Linux kernel code; I'm not clear if that is the case or if it would have any impact on the SFC 'binary distribution' theory.
Moving on... once installed on a target system there is a kernel image, Linux mainline dynamically loadable kernel modules, and third-party kernel modules (ZFS, DKMS-based modules, etc.):
/boot/vmlinuz-${VERSION}
/lib/modules/${VERSION}/kernel/
/lib/modules/${VERSION}/kernel/zfs/
/lib/modules/${VERSION}/updates/
/boot/initrd.img-${VERSION}
This is also usually the focus of arguments about GPLv2 compatibility, as in, for example, the nvidia kernel module.
In the nvidia case, rather like OpenZFS on Linux, the core code is not derived from Linux but is stand-alone and common across other operating systems (Windows, BSD). An nvidia GPLv2 API translation module is dynamically built (using DKMS) to match the kernel installed/running version(s) on the target system to the nvidia 'common core' binary blob library.
The obvious difference (setting aside the nvidia vs OpenZFS licenses) is OpenZFS on Linux API translation (SPL) is pre-built and distributed as a binary by Canonical/Ubuntu.
[0] https://github.com/zfsonlinux/ [1] http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git/tree/z... [2] http://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/amd64/linux-image-4.4.0-10...
The problem is solely with distributing in "object code or executable form" a "work" based on a GPLv2 program without also providing the source to that work under a GPLv2 license: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
Practically everyone agrees that if the end user puts the GPL and CDDL pieces together (whether compiled from source or downloaded as separate binaries) that there is no legal problem. The issue is whether the conjoined pieces that Ubuntu plans to distribute constitute a single "work", for if so the GPL says that this "work" cannot be distributed with the ZFS source offered under the less restrictive CDDL.
If Ubuntu's distribution is a single "work", there isn't that much dispute that it would be considered a derivative work of the constituent pieces. So the question becomes, does a compiled kernel plus an assortment of compiled kernel modules bundled together in whatever form Ubuntu offers constitute a "work based on the Program" as defined by the GPL license?
Unfortunately, I don't think there is any clear answer possible. The technical logic of the matter is only relevant in so far as one side's lawyer can persuade one or several non-technical judges that their side has more factors in favor of their interpretation than the other side has in its. If it actually went to trial, the outcome (and possible appeals) would be a crap-shoot.
You wrote:
"The issue is whether the conjoined pieces that Ubuntu plans to distribute constitute a single "work", for if so the GPL says that this "work" cannot be distributed with the ZFS source offered under the less restrictive CDDL."
My point is that the OpenZFS on Linux project contains individual components licensed by either the CDDL or GPLv2 is where the problem lies.
As in, if I distribute binaries of the OpenZFS on Linux project to you on their own this apparent CDDL vs GPLv2 conflict arises.
In that case bundling with the Linux kernel is irrelevant to the claimed issue of license incompatibility (unless the SPL is considered a derivative work of Linux [and that implies some further license interference pattern] - but equally it could be said SPL is a derivative of Solaris).
Bundling would usually fall under the copyright aggregation definition, which in almost all jurisdictions does not cause license conflicts between the component parts of the aggregated works.
Mogen and Choudhary address come close to addressing this in a footnote:
4. The phrase "derivative work" is also a term of art in US
copyright law, but is absent from most of the rest of the
world's major copyright systems. The idiosyncratic meaning
of "derivative work" in US copyright law is unrelated to
the use of the term by the kernel developers. This causes
confusion among US copyright lawyers, but the kernel
community's use of the phrase is consistent and clear
notwithstanding.
I think you raise a good point, though, and I don't think there is yet any case law covering this. Is it legal to distribute a tar file that contains both GPL and non-GPL files? I'd hope so, and hope that a court would agree, although I fear it would depend on which court and which lawyers are arguing it.
The most direct quote I can lift from there is:
"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting “work” and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work. The derivative work right is often referred to as the adaptation right"
That document also defines what I term an "aggregate" work as "Collective" works (Compilations).
Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) claims [1]:
"In the present case, the files containing the code of the ZFS filesystem are available under free software license, but the terms offered are CDDL, not GPLv2. So although complete and corresponding source code for the GPLv2-licensed kernel binary is available under free license, some files are available only under terms of CDDL, which is inconsistent with the literal meaning of GPLv2 section 2(b)"
So if OpenZFS on Linux's spl.ko is considered a derivative work of the Linux kernel it abides by 'GPLv2 section 2(b)'.
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." [2]
SFC seems to be trying to extend the 'derivative' definition to the independently developed CDDL OpenZFS Solaris code in zfs.ko et al. which is ported/portable across several operating systems.
Additionally, to get ever more precise in the analysis, bearing in mind the supposed issue here is triggering GPLv2 section 2(b) incompatibility at the point of distribution of binaries by Canonical (or others):
1. If I distribute OpenZFS on Linux binaries to you on their own I'm distributing effectively 8 compiled executable files which are either CDDL or GPLv2 licensed. Is this incompatible with GPLv2 section 2(b)?
2. If I distribute those 8 OpenZFS on Linux binaries to you in the same package as another GPLv2 licensed work that is a Collective Work; is this incompatible?
3. If I distribute both Opens ZFS on Linux and Linux Kernel binaries in the same package is this a Collective or a Derivative work, and if the latter, where does the reach of the GPLv2 end?
I cannot see any sustainable argument that the CDDL code (zfs.ko et al.) could be considered a derivative work since it is independent cross-OS code originally written for and targeted at Solaris.
At this stage of analysis consider the way SFC talks about the 'kernel' as a single 'work' in terms of copyright:
"But when essentially the same code is linked into kernel space through the LKM APIs, it becomes part of one work with the kernel, and a potential conflict of license terms results."
So now the issue seems to have switched from "it is incompatible to distribute the OpenZFS on Linux and Linux kernel binaries together" to "it is incompatible to link them at run-time".
Canonical is responsible for the former but the User is responsible for the latter.
SFC also makes the argument that the Open ZFS on Linux GPLv2-ed binaries are licensed "subject to the kernel copyright holders' interpretation of those terms".
But is (as I posited previously) spl.ko a derivative work of the Linux kernel, or of OpenZFS, or Solaris, or all, or none?
As SPL contains original creative copyrightable code wouldn't the 'interpretation' of the programmers who wrote the SPL code be more controlling than that of the programmers that wrote the Linux kernel API it calls?
Furthermore, at the point of distribution those binaries do not contain Linux kernel copyright code in the 'derivative' sense, but have place-holders for linking into the Linux kernel API that will be done by an executing kernel.
It's certainly a very intriguing case study of licensing; hopefully it'll eventually help more programmers clarify their understanding.
Personally I publish all my code under the GPL, version 3 for preference, which I consider a way of encouraging 'pay-forward'. I'd be extremely annoyed (to put it mildly) if an unconnected third party was making claims that implicitly marginalised my intentions when I chose the license.
On a final (perverse yet humorous) note - this entire discussion is based on the assumption of U.S.A. copyright law and its derivative legal theory. Canonical is a U.K. company operating under E.U./U.K. law. In strict legal theory if this 'incompatibility' were taken to its maximum extent it could end up being legal to distribute OpenZFS on Linux binaries everywhere but in the U.S.A!
[0] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf [1] http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.... [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
When we talk about a kernel module in isolation, its like talking about the moving pictures in a music video without the sound. When we talk about the independently developed OpenZFS Solaris code, we are talking about specific still frames of the video. Each part is required to make the adaption that we call a music video, and each part can be a independent copyrighted work.
Copyright get interpreted by judges and juries who normally take a common sense approach to such problems. Did party X intend to create an adaptation, and if so, did they have permission to do so? I think everyone, including FSC, agree that the Solaris developers did not create an adaptation of the linux kernel. This leaves the people who created the linux module that combined the Solaris code with linux specific adaptation code, and ubuntu that distribute the combination of kernel and module. What decision a jury would decide is to me very uncertain, but one strong argument that sways me towards FSC conclusion is that judges don't like to rule based on technicalities. If something looks like a an adaptation, it is an adaptation.
Going back to the music video example, Youtube currently works by splitting videos into two parts, a video stream and a audio stream. If they argued in court that its the user that link them at run-time, I think they would loose the argument no matter how technically true it is.
It's a great comparison on a common sense basis, but could you be more specific? My impression is that in the US there still isn't any definitive "vidding" caselaw. Are you aware of some, or by "most nations" are you referring to the (primarily European) moral rights to the integrity of the work? [1]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Moral_right_of_int...
What I am talking about is Synchronization rights[1]. If a musician has a deal with a publisher, they often want to be paid more if the song is played on a TV commercial then if its played on the radio or distributed on a CD. Most of this I just remember reading about years ago, but I remember that creative commons also address this concept[2]. An other example would be the agreement between NMPA and YouTube in 2011, where YouTube was granted the right to "reproduce, distribute and prepare derivative works (including synchronization rights)".
I have not memorized any specific cases where someone challenged this industry practice in court, and digging for one would take a bit more time that I have at the moment.
Thanks for the followup and the fine example!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Leventhal_%28programmer%2...
Keep in mind IANAL and this is just my limited understanding of the issue.
Because of all ways to fill in the "Hope _____ doesn't sue" plan, "Oracle" must be in the top 5 worst companies to fill in the blank with in the tech industry.
The real question is whether Oracle could convince a jury. It is hard to imagine what their argument would be. Then again, I would have never imagined that they would use copyright law over APIs to attack Google's use of Java.
The real problem here is that Oracle is the sort of company that does "test it in court". Is Canonical really big enough to be able to afford this level of risk? Even if they win I would be surprised if they managed to talk the judge into awarding them lawyer costs from Oracle. There's definitely enough ambiguity here that it wouldn't be a stupid suit. Legally, anyhow.
https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl...
Perhaps you are confusing them with SFC:
This is a faulty understanding of the issue. Other distros such as Debian are packaing 'ZFS on Linux'. Ubuntu is not the first one to offer the ability to have ZFS on Linux in the distros main repository. The difference is actually that the other distros distribute the ZFS code as source, then have the user compile it on their own computer, and then those distros consider that end product as non-redistributable. Whereas Ubunutu is doing the compilation on their own, then distributing the resulting binary work. That's the actual difference.
I don't understand people like this. If they were advocating using pirate copies of Microsoft Windows or other proprietary software, would they be saying "ignore Microsoft legal department and focus on how cool it is that I get a free copy of Windows ?
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
You may have the chops and cred to call someone stupid that wrote dtrace but I'd certainly hesitate before doing so myself.
I've been selling to enterprise customers for a little while now. All technology has risk, new technology and the status quo alike. Companies weigh those risks against the expected benefits. Some folks will obviously avoid the brouhaha completely; it makes sense. Others will decide that the benefits outweigh the risk; there's nothing less comprehensible about that decision.
http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2016/03/07/big-news-for-zfs-on-l...
Why imply it should convert to GPL? It could become GPL compatible by making the license more permissive.
https://blogs.oracle.com/chandan/entry/copyrights_licenses_a...
"A common misconception is about CDDL and GPL incompatibility. (Incompatibility in the sense: to combine two source files, one under GPL and another under CDDL, to create a common executable.) GPL is incompatible with most licenses like Mozilla Public License, Apache, and CDDL. GPL wants you erase those licenses and use GPL in that place, where as these licenses do not permit erasing them. Hence the incompatibility deadlock."
which i think is great.
SUSE Linux Enterprise also uses btrfs by default. There's also a bunch of features like booting into snapshots and snapper (snapshots taken before zypper transactions and on regular intervals with decaying granularity) which are in both OpenSUSE and SLE.
The other thing that matters a ton is kernel version, the development is so heavy there are thousands of insertions+deletions per kernel cycle that even in a year it's ordinary to consider those kernels "old" on the list. Most distros by default use old kernels by Btrfs development standards. The exception is Fedora, and openSUSE who do lots of backports explicitly to support Btrfs.
RAID1 is implemented to use the oddness of the pid to decide which disk to read from... RAID5/6 have huge performance problems in certain use-cases. Write hole is apparently still a thing.
Quota seems to be still broken or difficult to handle, the tooling is not exactly nice or intuitive (this may change in the future).
Hardware failure handling is nonexistent - it can't detect a broken drive.
Lot's of other gotchas. Just read the mailing list. I've been fighting against btrfs for a while and I'm happy when I'm not having to deal with it. Works probably fine for desktop usage but don't bother stressing it - at the moment it will break horrible.
That was admittedly a few years back, but it's still a long way from production use in many respects, while ZFS has been in production use for years and is well documented, has good tools, and is very robust. After several years of Btrfs problems, I gave up on it and moved to ZFS, initially on Linux and then on FreeBSD due to it being better integrated.
There are definitely things Btrfs can already do that ZFS cannot, like read-writable snapshots, no parent-child dependency (you can create a snapshot and immediately delete the original), growing pools is easier/faster without having to build new arrays or sequentially replace devices and resilver, etc. And just in the last week there's an experimental encryption patch for per subvolume encryption (eventually per file similar to f2fs and ext4), so the situation is heavy development.
So Canonical, a tiny desktop-focused Linux company, have discovered something that Red Hat's well paid lawyers have missed?
They are a commercial slightly modified Debian distro who have been shipping ZFS with their ISOs and ready to use out of the box, even from the installer wizard for zfs on root installs for around a year now.
Nobody has said anything about them doing this or sued them or tried to stop them.
They are distributing the ZFS on linux binary kernel module pre-instated as Canonical is about to do with Ubuntu.
Edit: Oracle seems to have very little reason to do anything for precedent. Canonical is both competition and a largish business, that would be done for the money, suing proxmox would look like being a bully.
That sounds like bad advice.
This guy is writing a windows driver for Btrfs
ZFS is indeed a lifesaver, but we in the BSD camps have know this for many moons.
Adding ZFS to Ubuntu is a benefit to everybody, and a smug, holier-than-thou attitude really does nothing to further the conversation about the technology.
Sticking a hack-licensing-job into Ubuntu is damaging to the Linux ecosystem, certainly not a benefit.
This is true, in the same way that it's true that the US could vote in a constitutional amendment to allow a dictatorship.
First, Oracle only has the copyright to the original ZFS code as it existed in 2010 when they stopped working on OpenSolaris.
Second, the AUTHORS[0] file from the 'zfs on linux' project that was imported into ubuntu lists 73 authors not including the Oracle developers, which appear to be both individuals (gmail accounts, etc) and multiple individual businesses (nexenta, ovh, etc). So Oracle cannot naively relicense those 6+ years of contributions, since they have no copyright over that new code. Thus changing the license of the original ZFS code would have no effect because all of the years of contributions since then would still be licensed as CDDL.
Third, Oracle does have exactly one 'option'. The details of the CDDL license specifically state that is 'auto upgrades' if a new version comes out, and an older version is not specifically mentioned. So theoretically, they could release a CDDL license version 1.3 that has radically updated text in order to be GPL compatible. However, since that effects all CDDL licensed code, they would end up relicensing every bit of CDDL code (related to Oracle or not) in the entire world. Is that something that Oracle should reasonable be expected to do? I think this is as likely, and as reasonable, as GPL v4 coming out with the text of the MIT license, thus affecting any GPL code in the world that says 'or any later version'. In other words, it's just not reasonable to use this 'one weird trick'.
So there is no remotely reasonable way in which Oracle can have an effect on this issue.
[0] - http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git/diff/z...
Though of course since laws are made by lawyers and not nerds, the new license may well be invalid and nothing would change at all except for lots of confusion.
Which makes you even more right.
4.1. New Versions.
Sun Microsystems, Inc. is the initial license steward and may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Except as provided in Section 4.3, no one other than the license steward has the right to modify this License."
4.2. Effect of New Versions.
You may always continue to use, distribute or otherwise make the Covered Software available under the terms of the version of the License under which You originally received the Covered Software. If the Initial Developer includes a notice in the Original Software prohibiting it from being distributed or otherwise made available under any subsequent version of the License, You must distribute and make the Covered Software available under the terms of the version of the License under which You originally received the Covered Software. Otherwise, You may also choose to use, distribute or otherwise make the Covered Software available under the terms of any subsequent version of the License published by the license steward.
Note that these two combined (regardless of lawyer or nerd) give a compelling case that it's plausible that Oracle could take that action. They won't, and I don't think they should, and I find it hard to see that it as remotely reasonable that they should be pressured to. However, if they did, then it's likely that it would be legal since each other CDDL contributor accepted the license, and relicensed their own code with the same possibility.
Obviously some lawyer would make the case that it's not a new version since it has drastically different text, but at that point we're well into moot, counterfactual realms.
That's exactly what I meant with lawyers<->nerds: publishing a radically different version is a nice hack, but may not hold up legally.
> but at that point we're well into moot, counterfactual realms.
That's what I meant with confusion. If the legal situation isn't entirely clear, the kernel team, distros and related companies might very well decide to play it safe.
ZOL still has some very clunky usability integrations (zpool status vs spare, sudo requirements, device name instabilities etc). I'm running ZOL on production servers, and sometimes it feels like back in the day when I tried to get the first ZFS patchsets against FreeBSD7 to run on my P3 with 1.5GB RAM. Sometimes worse.
The majority of Ubuntu users will not attribute these deficiencies to the ZOL port, but to "ZFS". We will see a lot of "So $XYZ has ZFS, well, I have tried it on Ubuntu and it s".