From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 03 08:42:12 2021 Received: (at 45692) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2021 12:42:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43268 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mM8WK-0000Tb-0U for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 08:42:12 -0400 Received: from mail-4318.protonmail.ch ([185.70.43.18]:34747) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mM8WH-0000TO-9g for 45692@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 08:42:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 12:41:55 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1630672921; bh=CfmColcHtExzctjfoPwVCCLr1NstiiH+evlsrqtWeW0=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=AyyR0kbbyXUrHWOHzCeP4mXMrFoAlS7HeM/5t0R0HyybWjlEPeAYtUy2QM4nqJIq6 phM4t6TFFSq/qwKfioGRZyEFFeOB6Aja0cT5ut5g+Tp4iFvWvIFXlqgDP8w8XJF552 8dZUQWzp/o+UVcWnKdHlnouudkhqvsXjEw0IzAYA= To: Maxime Devos , Efraim Flashner From: raid5atemyhomework Subject: Re: [bug#45692] [PATCH v4 3/3] gnu: Add ZFS service type. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <2020c2223378c7eb3635defb27e6b4545e048b9f.camel@telenet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on mailout.protonmail.ch X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45692 Cc: "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: , Reply-To: raid5atemyhomework Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Greetings Maxime, > Maxime Devos schreef op do 02-09-2021 om 22:57 [+0200]: > > > Hi, > > Some comments on the code. Spoiler: the code is presumably good, > > but there's a GPL violation. > > Nevermind, it's apparently less of an issue than I expected? > See the links to IRC at https://issues.guix.gnu.org/50347. Note that this patch does ***not*** add ZFS to the Guix project. Instead, this patch creates a convenient service that uses the existing `zf= s` package and builds the user system so that the user downloads the ZFS so= urce code, compiles it, and links it to the kernel on the system. In #50347, you refer to this analysis: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/= feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ I quote this part: > ## Is The Analysis Different With Source-Only Distribution? > > ... > > Pure distribution of source with no binaries is undeniably different. Whe= n > distributing source code and no binaries, requirements in those sections = of > GPLv2 and CDDLv1 that cover modification and/or binary (or =E2=80=9CExecu= table=E2=80=9D, as > CDDLv1 calls it) distribution do not activate. 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 distributio= n > media. This is in line with the analysis already quoted in the documentation added= : https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux Guix does ***not*** distribute any binaries; see the file `gnu/packages/fil= e-systems.scm` in the **current** `master` branch of Guix: > `(;; The ZFS kernel module should not be downloaded since the license > ;; terms don't allow for distributing it, only building it locally. > #:substitutable? #f Note that the above code ***predates*** this patch: fe338d7f009 (Efraim Fla= shner 2019-12-19 11:47:49 +0200 1188) Also CCing Efraim here --- presumably he had some choice arguments about ho= w `zfs` got into `gnu/packages/file-systems.scm` in the first place. If the CDDL-GPL incompatibility is problematic, then why is it only being b= rought up now, why did it not get brought up in 2019, when Efraim was submi= tting the patch that put the ZFS package into Guix in the first place? The code in this patch does not do anything that the user cannot do with th= eir own scripts (indeed, I prototyped much of the code in my own `configura= tion.scm`). The code in this patch also does not link, directly or indirectly, into the= ZFS kernel module. At worst, the code in this patch executes the binaries that are the output = of compilation, but since it is invoked as a separate binary running in a s= eparate process, there is no legal basis for considering this as "linking",= as opposed to merely invoking a separate program (if merely invoking a sep= arate program was enough to "link", then Windows cannot run any free softwa= re). Your referred document then makes some speculation that even source distrib= ution might be problematic. However, Guix does *not* even distribute sources, by my understanding --- t= he Guix build downloads from https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/releases/ witho= ut going through any Guix servers, so this should be even less of a problem= . If anyone is at legal risk, it is github, not Guix, for distributing the so= urces --- and it would be very strange for Oracle to not go after github fo= r distributing source code that is intended to be linked to GPL code, but g= o after Guix; Guix is a much more niche project than the openzfs/zfs projec= t on github. (my understanding is that Oracle implicitly allows the existence of openzfs= /zfs, even has some maintainers of the project on their payroll, so it woul= d be very strange to go after software that just downloads the source code = from that project, compiles it, links it, and does ***not*** distribute it = (`#:substitutable? #f`)) My understanding (and my argument) is that the already-existing code introd= uced in fe338d7f009 does not represent a distribution of any ZFS code, not = even source: * The existing fe338d7f009 code tells Guix to download from a github server= , not from Guix. * The existing fe338d7f009 code specifically tells Cuirass to not provide a= binary substitute, so Guix end-users must download from github, not from a= ny Guix servers. * Thus, even if source distribution is legally problematic, Guix does not= even distribute the source; the existing fe338d7f009 code just downloads i= t from an existing distributor. * That Oracle tolerates the continued existence of https://github.com/ope= nzfs/zfs undermines any legal argument Oracle might make if somebody else b= uilds a script that downloads ZFS from https://github.com/openzfs/zfd and c= ompiles it and links it to GPL code locally without redistributing; that pr= oject already contains human-readable instructions on how to download, buil= d, and link ZFS to a Linux kernel, the existing fe338d7f009 code merely tra= nslated that text to a machine-readable program. If Oracle thinks this is legally problematic, they should have demanded= shutdown of the https://github.com/openzfs/zfs project first, a much more = popular project than Guix. * The actual code in this patch does not directly invoke the ZFS kernel mod= ule. * The actual code in this patch does link the ZFS kernel module to the ke= rnel of the *local* system, but does not make this linked version available= to others; it is only available locally on the system of the user that inv= okes this actual code. Again, this is merely a translation (to machine-readable text instructi= ons) of human-readable text instructions on how to link the ZFS kernel modu= le to the Linux kernel, text available publicly on https://github.com/openz= fs/zfs. * The actual code in this patch invokes the ZFS tools as separate program= s, thus does not link with them. Thanks raid5atemyhomework