That's not ACCUSATION, that's POSSIBILITY...
That's not ACCUSATION, that's POSSIBILITY...
Posted Oct 15, 2008 14:26 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Quite succinct description of Linux kernel, yes... by paulj
Parent article: Linux Summit will preview new advanced file system (SearchEnterpriseLinux.com)
I am responding specifically to the accusation that Sun- copyrighted CDDL code being incorporated with GPLed code could lead to those involved in the GPLed code being sued by Sun.
What kind of response is this? Could Sun sue these people? Absolutely: Sun is contributor to Linux Kernel and so will have the right to sue. Will Sun sue such contributors? Who knows? When Caldera sponsored SMP patches to Linux is was also "quote obvious" it'll not sue other contributors... and it turned out to be not true.
Corporations are not people - you can not trust them! CEO come and go, shareholders can overturn CEO decisions, etc. Only written binding contracts can be trusted.
That's FUD..
Yes, it's FUD, but it's not groundless FUD. This scenario is quite real - no matter how unlikely it looks today. ZFS adoption can affect millions (perhaps billions) of people. To base their wellfare on faith in future Sun's decitions... looks reckless.
It all comes down to the question: do you trust FSF lawers more then you trust Sun's developers where licensing schemes are concerned? And sure as hell I'll trust FSF's lawers more then Sun's developers. And not because I don't trust Sun's developers.
Posted Oct 15, 2008 15:19 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (5 responses)
Whether its practical for Linux copyright holders to reach such an agreement, I've no idea. However, for many other projects (GPL, BSD or otherwise), such agreement is easily achievable - and on that count at least some of the CDDL/GPL "Sun could sue you!" claims are just pure FUD.
Anyway.. Let's call it a day now.
Posted Oct 15, 2008 17:16 UTC (Wed)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (4 responses)
In a word - yes. Why not? It's well-known fact that GPL and CDDL are like oil and water.
And it's also well-known fact that Linux kernel is licensed in such a way
that any "exceptions" are not easy to add (on purpose BTW). So it does not
look like a stretch that Sun have chosen CDDL for ZFS to
keep it out of Linux kernel - making both free, but separate pieces of
code. If this was design all along (and it certainly looks like this from
outside) then why do you think Sun will not sue the
trespassers? Especially
if it has the right to do so? Sun is one of these holders, you know. Sun, too, will be forced to sign
the paper which says "as special exception you can, blah, blah, blah".
Along with Broadcom, Dell, IBM, Intel and countless others. And if Sun
wanted such an outcome it always had other option: just dual-license
the thing under CDDL and GPL (like Mozilla did). Because Sun does not do
what is simple (GPL already has some kind of approval from Sun's lawers -
it's license of OpenOffice.org, after all) and instead preaches strange
legal theories on blogs and forums the general consensus is: "either Sun's
management does not want to have ZFS in Linux at all or it wants to use it
as a trap". What Sun's developers think is not very relevant here.
Neither choice very appealing but most people thing that first opinion is
closer to the truth (because second is much uglier). Possible but impractical. It's more-or-less the same process as a switch
to GPLv3 and it was investigated quite thoroughly. If Linux
deverloper wanted ZFS really badly they can always start adding such
exception, ask Sun to sign it too (and get approval or rejection in which
case they'll be forced to rewrite parts of kernel), etc. I'm afraid it
takes at least few years and by then btrfs will be ready to do what ZFS
does now. Yes, ZFS is great but it's not THAT great... What other GPLed kernel are out there to use ZFS? Other CDDL projects
can be usable (and will be usable, I'm sure). Just not ZFS. I think dtrace
can be usable, for example (you need hooks in kernel, true - but these must
be rewritten anyway and userspace<->kernelspace barrier was always
considered as GPL barrier so CDDLed userspace tools can be used).
Posted Oct 16, 2008 8:31 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (3 responses)
This makes sense only if you ignore the various, quite sensible reasons given by several Sun notables as to why the GPL and/or dual-licensing would not have worked for Solaris.
Dual-licensing: I'm reasonably sure at least one very well-respected engineer would have argued strongly against dual-licensing. It can lead to licence-forks. I.e. dual-licensing is worse than choosing the inferior of the two (incompatible) licences.
GPL: Is very incompatible with other licences (as we know from this thread). I.e. it would have made it difficult for Sun and others particularly to ship things like non-GPL (e.g. proprietary) drivers, filesystems and volume-managers with Solaris. Further, the GPLv2 does not really address patent issues, and Sun is a regular target for patent suits.
So yes, Sun could have chosen the GPL, but instead chose the CDDL simply to frustrate Linux users - this makes perfect sense if you just block out all the other, practical reasons that relate to Sun and its needs for Solaris.
Really, the problem here is that Linux contributors don't sign contributors agreements. Rather than figure out how to fix that and regain some kind of collectively-empowered, executive control, you instead direct your ire at Sun...
Posted Oct 16, 2008 13:55 UTC (Thu)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (1 responses)
I'm yet to see sensible reasons. Now we have interesting dilemma: position of at least one very well-
respected engineer (in Sun, I presume?) vs position of thousands of
Linux developers. Hmm... Who to choose. Sorry, Sun's engeeners are
revered - but not to this degree. How many projects can you name where dual-licensing actually led to
fork? There are hundreds, may be thousands dual-licensed
projects (if you count not just huge projects like Firefox but smaller ones
like bunch of CPAN addons). I never seen situation where addition of
the license option led to fork. Removal? Sure, it can produce forks.
XFree86 (changes made it incompatible with GPL, XFree86 is history now),
Firefox (in addition to GPL or MPL license you must agree to the
logo license and many developers find it quite onerous => we have IceCat and Iceweasel). Addition or
options? Never heard of this. How often this happen, really? Can you name
at least one sample? Conclusion: FUD. Number of licenses does not matter. I can generate million GPL-
compatible and CDDL-incompatible licenses with a simple script in five
minutes. Most projects out there are GPL-compatible. Most projects out
there are CDDL-incompatible. It was discussed to
death. Conclusion: FUD. Somehow this is not a problem for Java or OpenOffice.org but problem for
Solaris? Conclusion: FUD. This is at least valid reason. But why this is not a problem for Java,
then? Java is not important for Java company? don't make me laugh. Conclusion: FUD. No it makes perfect sense if you know for the fact that Sun
released other stategically important projects under GPL before
releasing Solaris under CDDL. What exactly is different with Solaris
and how it's needs differ from Java and OpenOffice.org? I never heard
a plausible explanation. Binary extensions, patents, etc, etc - all these
problems are equally applicable to Java, OpenOffice.org, and Solaris. I
know if one plausible reason and one plausible reason
ONLY: CDDL makes it impossible to
implaint Solaris's goodies in Linux and so Solaris gets much needed baubles
to preach which can not be just included in Linux. Because Sun's JDK and
OpenOffice.org are top dogs in relavant markets and Open Solaris is
underdog. Quite valid reason and
I'm ready to agree that it works just fine - but why all the pusturing and
empty screams "you just don't know about Solaris needs! this mythical
secret needs are served so much better by CDDL then GPL - but we'll never
disclose them! this is not about Linux! really! believe us!". It just does
not look
convincing. No, the problem here is position of Sun who puts itself above ALL
OTHER
Linux contributors. Basically it says: oh, sure you can use ZFS - but only
of YOU ALL (Dell, IBM, Intel, etc) agree to our terms. This is
called
ultimatum: the rules which serve hundreds of companies and
thousands of people should be changed just for Sun or else... you can not
use ZFS. Linux community considered this ultimatum and more-or-less
unanimously decided: ZFS is great but... it's just not worth it. The ire mostly goes not against Sun's ultimatum. It's
Sun's right and there are nothing Linux community can do about it
(except accept or reject - it rejected it). Sun does not want to see ZFS
included in Linux? Fine - we'll not do this. We respect Sun's wish. It's
his filesystem Sun and only Sun can decide if he wants to see it in Linux
or not. Ire goes against vain tries of Sun engineers to say that it's not
an ultimatum and it's goal is not to keep ZFS out of Linux reach. If it
walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck... you can be
reasonably sure it is a duck. I'm not sure what game Sun is playing here but to say that everyone
else must abandon GPL for unknown reason and claim that "it's not an
attack" is just dishonest. Ok, there are another explanation: Sun honestly believe that it's more
important then ALL OTHER companies involved in Linux. Dell, IBM,
Intel, Novell, RedHad... all their combined voices weight less then voice
of at least one very well-respected engineer. If that's so then
honestly I don't even know a psychiatrist who can even hope to cure such an
acute megalomania...
Posted Oct 16, 2008 16:51 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
As for different Sun software being licensed under different licences, a reasonable person might infer that these licensing decisions are taken in close consultation with, if not by, the groups responsible for the software concerned, and that different groups have different needs and even views. I have absolutely no idea why Java or OpenOffice or whatever are licensed the way they are. My perspective is from the Solaris group..
Anyway, you have your view. I've given mine.
Posted Oct 16, 2008 14:02 UTC (Thu)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Oh, it's possible that real reason is even more subtle: since currently
change of Linux's license is very-very hard and there are no entity to sue
all this fine arsenal of Microsoft's patents is not really usable. It can
sue some distributors and produce ire or EU, but it can not change the
license. If there was single entity which can relicense Linux then this
entity becomes target of Microsoft's attack with non-zero chance of
success. While phrase the problem here is that Linux contributors don't sign
contributors agreements points in this direction I just don't believe
Microsoft will be sooo deep. It's not above dirty tricks but it's
not so subtle... It looks more like scenario of RPG...
That's not ACCUSATION, that's POSSIBILITY...
Exception for CDDL? Possible yet unlikely...
So Sun would be the one sueing, but not using the CDDL, but for
GPL infringement?
I have to say I havn't thought about that one, and I presume
the judge won't much either before throwing out such a suit...
Even where the GPL copyright holders have agreed to allow CDDL
code?
Whether its practical for Linux copyright holders to reach such
an agreement, I've no idea.
However, for many other projects (GPL, BSD or otherwise), such
agreement is easily achievable - and on that count at least some of the
CDDL/GPL "Sun could sue you!" claims are just pure FUD.
Exception for CDDL? Possible yet unlikely...
And if Sun wanted such an outcome it always had other option: just dual-license the thing under CDDL and GPL (like Mozilla did).
And these people are talking about FUD?
This makes sense only if you ignore the various, quite sensible
reasons given by several Sun notables as to why the GPL and/or dual-
licensing would not have worked for Solaris.
Dual-licensing: I'm reasonably sure at least one very well-
respected engineer would have argued strongly against dual-licensing. It
can lead to licence-forks. I.e. dual-licensing is worse than choosing the
inferior of the two (incompatible) licences.
GPL: Is very incompatible with other licences (as we know from
this thread).
I.e. it would have made it difficult for Sun and others
particularly to ship things like non-GPL (e.g. proprietary) drivers,
filesystems and volume-managers with Solaris.
Further, the GPLv2 does not really address patent issues, and
Sun is a regular target for patent suits.
So yes, Sun could have chosen the GPL, but instead chose the
CDDL simply to frustrate Linux users - this makes perfect sense if you just
block out all the other, practical reasons that relate to Sun and its needs
for Solaris.
Really, the problem here is that Linux contributors don't sign
contributors agreements. Rather than figure out how to fix that and regain
some kind of collectively-empowered, executive control, you instead direct
your ire at Sun...
And these people are talking about FUD?
Yet another possibility...