Disagree [LWN.net]

Disagree

Posted Dec 10, 2010 11:38 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1)
In reply to: Getting grubby with ZFS by jmalcolm
Parent article: Getting grubby with ZFS

Hold on. Oracle distributed its code as part of a derived version of GRUB. So of course the GPL imposes obligations on them - providing the source to anybody who asks for it, for example (since they did binary distribution). They can't stop distributing that code for a while yet.

For the record, I don't think anybody has hinted that Oracle has not lived up to those requirements.

The question is not whether obligations exist; they clearly do. Instead, it's whether those obligations stop at GPLv2, or whether GPLv3ish requirements come into play as well. If (1) the FSF says that GPLv3 prevents Oracle from buying a "covenant not to sue," and (2) Oracle does not distribute a GPLv3 version of GRUB, the conclusion is that, in the FSF's mind, the "or any later version" license was equivalent to distributing under GPLv3 in the first place.

Or, to get closer to your language, "the conditions under which Oracle permits you to use the code" include a condition (from GPLv3) that Oracle will not buy a partial patent umbrella that excludes you.

(Log in to post comments)

Disagree

Posted Dec 13, 2010 10:26 UTC (Mon) by jmalcolm (guest, #8876) [Link]

I agree with most of what you say.

Sure, they need to "continue" releasing their code under GPLv2 if they want to distribute a version of GRUB that uses GPLv2 (which they do). However, they have no obligation to move to GPLv3 just because somebody else did that with their code.

Now, if GRUBv2 is GPLv3 only and Oracle wants to distribute that then this is another matter. Clearly now they would need to release their code under GPLv3. The point is that it would be them doing it voluntarily.

Distributing code you wrote under the GPL does not obligate you to do anything. "All" the text of of the GPL applies to the people that receive your code but not to you at all. A lot of people seem very confused by this and that is what I was trying to address.

So, when you say that you are releasing code as GPLv2+ you are saying that anybody who gets your code can only "distribute" the software if they license it as GPLv2 or higher (including GPLv3). It does not say that you need to re-release it under a later version of the GPL, any other license for that matter, or that you even need to keep making it available at all.

In this case, you are pointing out that Oracle not only releases GPL code that they wrote but in fact combines that code with code that they themselves received under the GPL. They are now bound by the terms of the version of the GPL that was used for the code they received.

My point is that they are bound by the license they "recieve" not the one they "offer".

Love what you do

Posted Dec 13, 2010 10:29 UTC (Mon) by jmalcolm (guest, #8876) [Link]

PS. I just wanted to say thank you for your great work and well thought-out reporting. It is very rare that I disagree with you. When I do, I am probably often wrong.

[Not this time though of course. :-) ]