| 1 |
On 27/08/2013 09:59, Joerg Schilling wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> People who believe that there is a problem use a wrong interpretation of the |
| 5 |
>>> GPL. The CDDL definitely does not prevent combinations with other software. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> The problem is not with CDDL, the problem is with the GPL. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> ZFS in the kernel requires that ZFS as shipped be relicensed as GPL, it |
| 10 |
>> forms a derivative work of the kernel. No external license can change |
| 11 |
>> the terms of the GPL. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The law can! |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The GPL is in conflict with the law and therefore the parts you have in mind |
| 16 |
> are just void. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Which law is the GPL in conflict with, and in which jurisdiction, and |
| 19 |
what is the extent of the conflict? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
To the best of my knowledge, what you claim has not been tested in a |
| 22 |
court of law with jurisdiction, and is not a matter of law. Until that |
| 23 |
happens, it is an untested legal opinion and as we know, opinions can vary. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The kernel devs have their position, you have yours. In this case, the |
| 26 |
opinion of the kernel devs is the one that carries as they control what |
| 27 |
does and does not ship. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> BTW: I am still waiting for a legally acceptable explanation on why the GPL |
| 32 |
> should be compatible to the BSD license. Note that the BSD license is very |
| 33 |
> liberal, but it definitely does not permit to relicense code that was published |
| 34 |
> under the BSD license withour written permission of the Copyright holder. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
There is no requirement that the GPL should be compatible with the BSD |
| 37 |
license. The GPL only requires that derivative works comply with the |
| 38 |
terms of the GPL. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
If BSD code is shipped with GPL code and the BSD code is the derivative |
| 41 |
work, the BSD license does not demand that the code be published. |
| 42 |
However, the GPL does so the entire codebase is published under the |
| 43 |
terms of the GPL. Thus the conditions of both licenses are satisfied, |
| 44 |
and no relicensing is involved. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> So is the problem just a social problem given the fact that Linux comes with |
| 48 |
> BSD licensed parts? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
I don't follow your reasoning here. How does the BSD license affect CDDL |
| 51 |
code in this case? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> Jörg |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 61 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives