From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161413AbXDQWwk (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:52:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161415AbXDQWwk (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:52:40 -0400 Received: from dhazelton.dsl.enter.net ([216.193.185.50]:50539 "EHLO mail" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161413AbXDQWwj convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:52:39 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: David Lang Subject: Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:52:29 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Tomasz =?utf-8?q?K=C5=82oczko?= , Matthew Garrett , Theodore Tso , "David R. Litwin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200704171819.28407.dhazelton@enter.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704171852.29546.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 17 April 2007 18:12:17 David Lang wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > >> [..] > >> > >>>> Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument > >>>> was allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another > >>>> license which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr > >>>> argument ? > >>>> > >>>> kloczek > >>> > >>> Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the "or any later version > >>> of this license" clause (except, now, the version being used with the > >>> Linux kernel) > >> > >> So after around commented swiching to GPL v3 it will be possible to > >> start work on GLP v3.5 which will allow easy reuse CDDL code under Linux > >> .. good to know :o) > > > > Nope. Note that I said "Except the Linux Kernel". > > > > After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release > > of the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2 > > actually the GPLv2 only predates the GPLv3 draft by several years > > there are quite a few other projects that are also GPLv2 only > > > So the Linux kernel will *never* be able to have a version of the GPL > > other than the current one applied. This change might have occurred > > without the knowledge or agreement of the FSF, who maintain the GPL, but > > since it was done with the complete agreement of all the current > > developers - and assumed agreement of any who contributed and are no > > longer able to consent (since their code was originally released under > > GPLv2) - it should stand. After all, the form of the license that applies > > to the kernel is shipped with the kernels sources. > > the 'or later' version is not part of the GPLv2 license itself, it's a burb > that the FSF suggests that people use so that they (the FSF) can > retroactivly change the license of the code that other people create. > > The dispute over the GPLv3 is if these retroactive chagnes aer to the > benifit or detriment of the people who created the code. > > > In fact, from the copy in the latest Git: > > NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel > > services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use > > of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". > > Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software > > Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux > > kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. > > > > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel > > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not > > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. > > > > Linus Torvalds > > ----------------- > > take a look at the date that this went into the kernel Yeah, I did afterwards. Perhaps it was because of the discussion that occurred then that I remember it. > >> How many years it will take ? two, three ? more ? (it will be > >> good to know how long we must wait on ZFS under Linux .. I don't belive > >> in rewriting ZFS code time and make it so useable on production as *now* > >> it is possible under Solaris/*BSD/MOX and passing all pointless arguing > >> will take shorter time) .. or maybe never because some people says > >> something like "Linux is in GPL cage". > > > > Linux is not in any cage - Solaris and ZFS, because of the CDDL, sit > > inside the cage. I, personally, will *NEVER* release code meant to be > > "open source" under a license that makes demands like those of the user. > > and similarly, many people will not release code under a license that lets > other people change the terms years later. Agreed. This is something that I would never do. DRH > > David Lang