SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 25, 2016 18:30 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
Parent article: SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Oracle's ZFS has clearly been modified to adapt it to Linux. The adaptations depend both on Linux and ZFS, and thus can not be distributed (unless somebody convinces a judge that there was no creative content in the part taken from Linux, nor the files #included, nor the functions (or their prototypes and functionality) filched from Linux, neither the other way around).

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 25, 2016 20:34 UTC (Thu) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link] (7 responses)

For an operating system with an interface transparently cloned from UNIX, the proposition that a module cannot implement an interface for compatibility reasons without resulting in a derived work is a bit on the hypocritical side of things I think.

That said the legal standard in the United States is that a derived work is "based upon" another protected work. No court has ever determined that merely consuming an API makes for a derivative work, let alone a derivative work not protected by fair use. The courts have yet to determine whether even cloning and implementing an entire API is allowed under fair use or not.

Whether something has been adapted and what those adaptations are intended for is legally irrelevant. Purpose, use, and dependency have nothing as such to do with whether one work is "based upon" another. Someone out there is perpetrating the greatest legal rumor of all time. It is wishful thinking at best. Until there is actual statutory text or actual case law in favor of any conclusion of the kind it is more like collective self-delusion.

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 25, 2016 20:48 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (5 responses)

> For an operating system with an interface transparently cloned from UNIX, the proposition that a module cannot implement an interface for compatibility reasons without resulting in a derived work is a bit on the hypocritical side of things I think.

There's worlds of difference between an internal interface (subject to considerable change over time) versus an explicitly standardized external interface.

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 25, 2016 21:25 UTC (Thu) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link] (4 responses)

> There's worlds of difference between an internal interface (subject to considerable change over time) versus an explicitly standardized external interface.

What possible argument could be made in favor of the proposition that the difference has anything to do with copyright law?

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 25, 2016 22:03 UTC (Thu) by fandingo (guest, #67019) [Link] (3 responses)

EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 26, 2016 1:06 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (2 responses)

There is no agreement within the developer community that the symbol means anything at all. There is a camp of developers that think it means what you think it means and there are others that completely disagree. As it's never been tested in court it's an open issue.

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 26, 2016 1:59 UTC (Fri) by fandingo (guest, #67019) [Link] (1 responses)

You're totally right, but the question was, "what possible argument could be made...?" EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is an obvious legal argument that can be *made*. That doesn't mean that it's unambiguously valid.

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 27, 2016 6:16 UTC (Sat) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

Don't think you want to bring up something like that in court where there's no agreement. You'd just open a can of worms that would divert the entire issue. First rule in court is don't bring up issues like this where it turns on the opinion of groups because the other side will find just as much evidence that directly contradicts your filing while at the same time potentially biasing the judge against your argument.

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 25, 2016 21:40 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

We are talking internal interfaces here. Not the system call interface, far from it.

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 25, 2016 21:24 UTC (Thu) by spotter (guest, #12199) [Link] (2 responses)

Weird Q: Do you side with Oracle in the Oracle v. Google? i.e. you seem to argue that function prototypes are copyrightable?

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 25, 2016 21:33 UTC (Thu) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link] (1 responses)

Under current law in the United States, APIs - at least extensive ones - are protected by copyright. The question of whether re-implementing an entire API is permissible under fair use, however, has yet to be decided.

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 25, 2016 23:03 UTC (Thu) by spotter (guest, #12199) [Link]

Would reimplementing one be less of a fair use usage than simply using one?

if Google wins, could one still claim that a non GPLd usage of a GPLd interface is not a fair use usage of said API and hence doesn't fall under the GPL's ability to restrict usage via copyright?

It really feels like the community as as whole is on both sides of this issue in difference cases.

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 25, 2016 21:50 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

The adaptations, if they did not modify the CDDL ZFS core, could be distributed as GPLv2.

I.e., if you took the unmodified CDDL ZFS core, and you wrote a translation/adaption layer between Linux APIs and the ZFS ones, then only the translation layer would be subject to the GPLv2 of Linux. The CDDL would not extend to the adaption layer, as the CDDL is a "weak" copyleft licence and restricts itself to covered files and "modifications" (exactly what that means may not be 100% clear).

That would be no different to the initial argument for NVidias' binary driver not being derived from Linux.

The key question is: Has the 'core' indeed been left unmodified, and free of changes to accommodate Linux?

SFC: GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux

Posted Feb 26, 2016 14:26 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

> Oracle's ZFS has clearly been modified to adapt it to Linux.

Modifying something to work on Linux doesn't mean it's a derivative work.