▲ | p_l 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
Oracle has no standing. Additionally, GPLv2 does not prevent shipping ZFS combined with GPL code, because CDDL code is not derivative work of GPLv2 code. So it's legal to ship. It could be problematic to upstream, because kernel development would demand streamlining to the point that the code would be derivative. Additionally, two or three kernel contributors decided that the long standing consensus on derivative work is not correct and sued Canonical. So far nothing happened out of that, Los Alamos National Laboratory also laughed it off. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | tzs 3 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> Additionally, GPLv2 does not prevent shipping ZFS combined with GPL code, because CDDL code is not derivative work of GPLv2 code. So it's legal to ship. The CDDL code is not a derivative work of GPLv2 code, but the combined work as a whole is a derivative work of GPLv2 code (assuming by "combined" we are talking about shipping an executable made by compiling and linking GPLv2 and CDDL code together). Shipping that work does require permission from both the GPLv2 code copyright owners and the CDDL code copyright owners unless the code from on or the other can be justified under fair use or if it was a part of the GPLv2 or CDDL code that is not subject to copyright. What Canonical does is ship ZFS as a kernel module. That contains minimal GPLv2 code from the kernel that should be justifiable as fair use (which seems like a decent bet after the Oracle vs Google case). | |||||||||||||||||
|