Hi Maxime, On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 12:41, Maxime Devos wrote: > ‘Nevertheless, there may be arguments for contributory and/or indirect copyright > infringement in many jurisdictions. We present no specific analysis ourselves on > the efficacy of a contributory infringement claim regarding source-only distributions > of ZFS and Linux. However, in our GPL litigation experience, we have noticed that > judges are savvy at sniffing out attempts to circumvent legal requirements, and they > are skeptical about attempts to exploit loopholes. Furthermore, we cannot predict > Oracle's view — given its past willingness to enforce copyleft licenses, 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.’ The « Nevertheless » is because the previous sentence is: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- […] Therefore, the analysis is simpler, and we find no specific clause in either license that prohibits source-only redistribution of Linux and ZFS, even on the same distribution media. Nevertheless, […] --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- My understanding is: - binary distribution violates licenses - source-only distribution appears to be fine - SFC cannot guarantee because all the arguments about source-only distribution have never been tested in Court. Moreover, they write an explicit paragraph why « You cannot and should not rely on this document as legal advice. » ;-) > I don't quite see a GPL violation anymore if we only distribute unmodified Good. :-) > source code. However, what about freedom (1) and (3) (freedom to [...] and > change the program in source form and (3) distribute modified versions)? Each license is free [1]. Therefore, they respect all the freedoms. The issue is about linking the result and distribute the binary. 1: > (*) 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 ‘out-sourcing’ the source code distribution. > Besides, ci.guix.gnu.org keeps a copy of the source code, and > (guix download) will try to download from ci.guix.gnu.org. Indeed, ci.guix.gnu.org keeps a copy of (as much as possible) source code. But ci.guix.gnu.org does not distribute all the corresponding binaries: see 'arguments' '#:substitutable? #f'. It is already the case for the package 'zfs': --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (arguments `(;; The ZFS kernel module should not be downloaded since the license ;; terms don't allow for distributing it, only building it locally. #:substitutable? #f --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- As explained in the initial submission [2], this patch set is just a "glue" usable by the user locally. No binaries on the Guix side is involved. All the source-code is under free license. 2: Cheers, simon