Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>]

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