From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 06 06:41:08 2021 Received: (at 45692) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Sep 2021 10:41:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52070 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mNC3n-0002qG-M8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 06:41:07 -0400 Received: from michel.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.137.88]:59134) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mNC3k-0002q5-Gv for 45692@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 06:41:07 -0400 Received: from butterfly.local ([213.132.129.254]) by michel.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id qah02500T5VU3ct06ah2He; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 12:41:03 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bug#45692] [PATCH v4 3/3] gnu: Add ZFS service type. From: Maxime Devos To: zimoun Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 12:40:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: <86bl56jfdn.fsf@gmail.com> References: <2020c2223378c7eb3635defb27e6b4545e048b9f.camel@telenet.be> <86bl56jfdn.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-00URjjkmLg5XFM0gsQkX" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telenet.be; s=r21; t=1630924863; bh=wKKwJ/tAXr/wc6ILzYdP3Rr5ZqC1iJ0Yt9eqyjY3BKg=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=IIHAjE7J30DfLr2UlDJIK2OOtMhqT7S8pmD3f8vrrA2G91yKTzr9MRccBk3E/VGR1 3eXfHPhSKDej07Uo+PYSG00lAuzHDx0hxmHcH/7LsAu5JBsTy3b9GLGHt/GY0KOo2u f8Sggn+/fmCbzNyciz/S0bdUY3wbIrd9nP2YzCP8pQqIFesrSc+Xdg4kNze2Fr4Vbb y0phaDCnscrjtZ4h4dj0j08LDVU7LuWEkoszviu1Fh1xO+y0i9NehB8Ae1/boG+Rhq 0/HVCywllQHNrBbRTgVmDtYLPrkQASIZsQUjytLAPNF+denyenhoSDjj0e1aktFC/p QGxh0papFybTQ== X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45692 Cc: raid5atemyhomework , "45692@debbugs.gnu.org" <45692@debbugs.gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) --=-00URjjkmLg5XFM0gsQkX Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable zimoun schreef op ma 06-09-2021 om 10:08 [+0200]: > Hi Maxime. Hi zimoun, >=20 > On Thu, 02 Sep 2021 at 22:57, Maxime Devos wrote= : >=20 > > See also ;. >=20 > Reading the Software Freedom Conservancy analysis, from my > understanding, the issue is about distributing the resulting *binary* > Linux+ZFS. Previously I thought that =E2=80=98Is The Analysis Different With Source-On= ly Distribution?=E2=80=99 somehow did not apply here, though I cannot remember the reasoning well (ma= ybe my reasoning was bogus?). However, SFC did note in that section: =E2=80=98Nevertheless, there may be arguments for contributory and/or indir= ect copyright infringement in many jurisdictions. We present no specific analysis ourselv= es on the efficacy of a contributory infringement claim regarding source-only dis= tributions of ZFS and Linux. However, in our GPL litigation experience, we have notice= d that judges are savvy at sniffing out attempts to circumvent legal requirements,= and they are skeptical about attempts to exploit loopholes. Furthermore, we cannot p= redict Oracle's view =E2=80=94 given its past willingness to enforce copyleft lice= nses, and Oracle's recent attempts to adjudicate the limits of copyright in Court. Downstream = users should consider carefully before engaging in even source-only distribution.=E2=80= =99 I'm completely unfamiliar with the notion of =E2=80=98contributory copyring= infringement=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98indirect copyright infringement=E2=80=99. =E2=80=98Savvy judge= s skeptical at attempts to exploit loopholes=E2=80=99 seems plausible to me in my inexpert opinion. > Other said, the distribution of the zfs.ko is an issue, not > provide a way to build it locally. Well, it does not appear to be a GPL > violation, IIUC the SFC analysis. I neglected that the terms of the GPL that come into play depend on whether one is only distributing source code (*) or also binaries, and whether one = is distributing _modified_ source code. I don't quite see a GPL violation anymore if we only distribute unmodified source code. However, what about freedom (1) and (3) (freedom to [...] and change the program in source form and (3) distribute modified versions)? I was going to write something here about why that would not be (legally) possible because of the CDDL and GPL, but I forgot why it wouldn't be possible. Maybe it is actually possible? (*) raid5atemyhomework noted that guix does _not_ distribute source code, it only points to source code locations. I don't quite agree. From my point of view, on whose server the source code is hosted is merely a technicality, guix is just =E2=80=98out-sourcing=E2=80=99 the source code d= istribution. Besides, ci.guix.gnu.org keeps a copy of the source code, and (guix download) will try to download from ci.guix.gnu.org. > Thanks for taking the time to carefully review all the aspects. Greetings, Maxime --=-00URjjkmLg5XFM0gsQkX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iI0EABYKADUWIQTB8z7iDFKP233XAR9J4+4iGRcl7gUCYTXwNRccbWF4aW1lZGV2 b3NAdGVsZW5ldC5iZQAKCRBJ4+4iGRcl7kMuAP4643cECusxy+LaPDPqCdgvBOnO aJuyd5rIiDoRRariMQEA17L6e8O1pfR/eGQicTL/PYkK/USvvl34oo+nEvtAEAw= =3dxq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-00URjjkmLg5XFM0gsQkX--