Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC?

[Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli <GNUtoo@cyberdimension.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2738 bytes --]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:02:11 -0800
Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:

> On 2021-11-24, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:03:18 +0100
> > "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 01:45:19AM +0100, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
> >> wrote:
> 
> https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/
> 
> > That article states that:
> >> Pure distribution of source with no binaries is undeniably
> >> different. When distributing source code and no binaries,
> >> requirements in those sections of GPLv2 and CDDLv1 that cover
> >> modification and/or binary (or “Executable”, as CDDLv1 calls it)
> >> distribution do not activate. Therefore, the analysis is simpler, 
> > So is it legal because zfs-on-linux is distributed as source and
> > that the CDDL license incompatible requirements are waived when it
> > is distributed as source?
> 
> Rather than "waived", they are simply not applicable. There is
> basically an "if" statement in the CDDL that triggers the
> incompatibility, and in the case of source-only distribution, the
> conflicting parts of the licenses do not come into play.

I've not checked that in details yet but for now I'll assume that this
holds (until proven otherwise).

While thinking about this very weird case of combining GPL and CDDL
code together, I wonder if the fact that we can't redistribute binaries
still makes it free software.

At least the free software definition doesn't have anything that cover
this specific case:
> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose
> (freedom 0).

> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it
> does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source
> code is a precondition for this.

> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
> (freedom 2).

> The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
> (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance
> to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a
> precondition for this.

But I wonder if a license that forbid binary redistribution would still
be considered free or not. 

And also conditions may apply to the specific case, for instance here
nobody has an alternative (including Oracle) for redistributing
binaries unless Oracle releases ZFS under a license fully compatible
with the GPL or that Linux is re-licensed (that would probably be more
complicated than rewriting ZFS from scratch).

Other cases like a vendor forbidding binary distribution to make its
users pay for nonfree licenses might be way more problematic.

Denis.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]