That's what they say - others claim that even a dynamically loaded module is producing a derivative and thus you're not allowed to distribute a non-GPL-ed binary module.
Matthew Garret (a kernel developer and thus a shared copyright holder of the kernel) is of the opinion that linking a binary ZFS module is not legal:
I know zealots are necessary to keep a balance. I've typically appreciated the utility of people like RMS to the free software movement.
That said, Matt Garret's Captain Ahab-like zeal of keeping one of the most useful pieces of open-source code away from Linux, while taking potshots at Ubuntu, is really off-putting. I guess I'm not so pure.
Which is why I run my file server with BSD.
I'm really excited to see ZFS functional in 16.04, and in fact, that got me to install the pre-beta just to mess with it.
I can understand how you disagree with Mathew (and I also would prefer for ZFS to be universally available under Linux), but that's not the point here.
The GPL states in clear terms what's allowed and what isn't.
It doesn't matter whether you believe a specific use case should make it ok to violate the license or not.
It's like laws. Whether you personally believe they are just or not is not a reason why they should or should not apply to you.
In my heart, I know. As a user, it's just frustrating to see so much awesome technology artificially limited by silly licenses on both sides of this debate.
>That said, Matt Garret's Captain Ahab-like zeal of keeping one of the most useful pieces of open-source code away from Linux, while taking potshots at Ubuntu, is really off-putting.
Your response to a large company violating the license that Linux is distributed under is to blame Matthew Garret for pointing it out?
That's a little presumptuous. Violating? On one hand we have some opinions from people, some lawyers, some not, saying they think this could be a violation.
On the other, there's equal opinions that this (or the way the did this) is -not- a violation.
So I don't think it's particularly fair to reach for your pitchfork, either.
Besides, his response had almost nothing to do with Ubuntu, it was "Garret's zeal in trying to keep ZFS off Linux" regardless of distro (which is true). "While taking potshots at Ubuntu" (which is also true, and on issues far wider than "including ZFS".
Can you provide bar numbers of lawyers who would make that claim?
So far, Matthew Garrett has yet to claim that any attorney said this is a problem. The only claim he has made (after I got him to clarify what was said) is that he met some attorneys who said that they were not absolutely sure that there is no problem. There are likely attorneys out there that make similar claims about the GPL software in general, so I really am not that concerned that he found a few attorneys that said that they were not sure.
Indeed. ZFS, supported by Canonical. Its Canonical's considered legal opinion that there isn't a problem with ZFS, and if you disagree you can sue them. They put their balls on the table. Dare you to try cutting them off. You need a real lawyer to try that, not an armchair lawyer.
that zfs was "merged into the kernel tree," but so far as I know the GPL doesn't dictate that things can't be stored in the same location together. There are no official GPL certified directory structures, etc.
Those comments are very different from Matthew's previous comments regarding Oracle's dtrace LKM for Linux, where the only definitive remark he had was that bypassing the GPL symbol export like they did was not okay:
His argument about CDDL Linux kernel modules using non-GPL exported symbols being a problem is clearly FUD. Specifically, Fear of a violation; Uncertainty of a violation; and Doubt that there is no violation.
Does Garrett hold the copyright on anything that the ZFS module could be considered a derivative work of? I mean presumably the notion that the ZFS module is a derivative work is based on the ZFS module containing code that was written to work with particular parts of the Linux kernel - but it's not going to touch a lot of the kernel API. So who owns the copyrights on the parts that it does touch.
On twitter[0], he is suggesting that since the binary module is a derivative work (of the linux kernel due to linking to it), according to the GPL, the source code to ZFS must be licensed under a GPL compatible license.
However, since Canonical cannot relicense the ZFS code to a GPL-compatible license (since they are not the copyright holder), if they distribute the ZFS module, they would be in violation of the GPL (and thus lose their rights under the GPL to the kernel code).
Whether that's actually true appears to be up for a debate depending upon whether or not a binary module is distribution or not, which is why he's suggesting he'll talk to the FSF about possible recourse.
Given his track record trying to get Oracle to stop using a GPL exported symbol in their CDDL DTrace module, it is unlikely he is going to do anything here. Orqcle has committed an actual potential violation as far as lawyers with whom I have talked are concerned. Canonical has not.
Matthew Garret (a kernel developer and thus a shared copyright holder of the kernel) is of the opinion that linking a binary ZFS module is not legal:
https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/700021939708915712 https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/700073945064611841 https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/700074164435091456
As a copyright holder, he is potentially in the position of suing canonical over this (and he doesn't like them very much, so he just might)