Modules [LWN.net]

Modules

Posted Aug 15, 2011 16:29 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1)
In reply to: SmartOS (based on IllumOS) released - with KVM by gidoca
Parent article: SmartOS (based on IllumOS) released - with KVM

OK, that's useful. One has to agree that loading KVM as a module into a Solaris kernel cannot turn the kernel into a derived work of KVM - as long as they didn't put KVM-derived stuff there already to make that loading possible. It seems that they are saying that this module is also not a derived work of the Solaris kernel, so the CDDL's requirements won't apply to it.

to post comments

Modules

Posted Aug 15, 2011 19:12 UTC (Mon) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link] (2 responses)

It's not them who is claiming this - it's the CDDL license:

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.

1.9. Modifications means the Source Code and Executable form of any of the following:

A. Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or modification of the contents of a file containing Original Software or previous Modifications;

B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or previous Modification; or

C. Any new file that is contributed or otherwise made available under the terms of this License.

Since the KVM code does not fit to these claims, it's not covered by the CDDL license.

No breach of CDDL terms here

Posted Aug 22, 2011 23:26 UTC (Mon) by webmink (guest, #47180) [Link] (1 responses)

Since no CDDL-licensed file appears to be being modified or merged with KVM, I can see no reason at all why KVM needs to be covered by CDDL. Remember CDDL is a file-l;evel, weak copyleft license like the MPL (or indeed in some circumstances like LGPL) and thus merely loading KVM into the Illumos kernel does not create a need for KVM to be CDDL-licensed.

No breach of CDDL terms here

Posted Aug 23, 2011 1:17 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

It's true that there's probably no breach of the CDDL here, but the GPL requires that the entire work be available under terms compatible with the GPL. If the final work is a derivative of both CDDLed work and GPLed work, then the CDDLed work also needs to be available under terms compatible with the GPL. The question of whether it's a derivative work of the CDDLed code is one that's determined by law and the courts, not by the CDDL.