From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id qBRdBIKanmG0SAAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 21:03:14 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id kMkZAIKanmGEEwAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 20:03:14 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ECE12E13E for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 21:03:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:33686 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mpyU4-00008q-Hf for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:03:12 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45988) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mpyTL-00005g-HF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:02:27 -0500 Received: from [2600:3c01:e000:267:0:a171:de7:c] (port=46300 helo=cascadia.aikidev.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mpyTJ-0001ss-NY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:02:27 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:21:21:21:0:100e]) (Authenticated sender: vagrant@cascadia.debian.net) by cascadia.aikidev.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69F951A982; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:02:21 -0800 (PST) From: Vagrant Cascadian To: Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli , "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" Subject: Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? In-Reply-To: <20211124142836.7c7a318d@primarylaptop.localdomain> References: <87eecfrw25.fsf@nckx> <20211120020940.5efaa2b2@primary_laptop> <87v90no8n1.fsf@nckx> <20211121023324.0a3ba29a@primarylaptop.localdomain> <20211121103548.yi5lo6ymcnm22gfm@pelzflorian.localdomain> <20211122180255.ipauqebmoiyw4bb3@pelzflorian.localdomain> <87bl2aixvx.fsf@gnu.org> <20211124005004.109ef096@primarylaptop.localdomain> <20211124014519.1e227941@primarylaptop.localdomain> <20211124120136.l2dmta332z7c6bmx@pelzflorian.localdomain> <20211124142836.7c7a318d@primarylaptop.localdomain> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:02:11 -0800 Message-ID: <878rxd5nlo.fsf@ponder> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2600:3c01:e000:267:0:a171:de7:c (failed) Received-SPF: none client-ip=2600:3c01:e000:267:0:a171:de7:c; envelope-from=vagrant@debian.org; helo=cascadia.aikidev.net X-Spam_score_int: -10 X-Spam_score: -1.1 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, raid5atemyhomework@protonmail.com, Domagoj Stolfa Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1637784193; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post; bh=VNkyTPrOwbg90xRrod5DrSqi3Bs7EeaYAetqe6MQCJo=; b=XReyjq1rBbLuEQTmKlQf47MkO2ydkDGoCZMw7HtqN37WBZ+uYMud9ChRwK32EFrAhzHAFn y9GyFSjq180LCCuSiGQ2uY4londEaeAEr2eqQAx6oM0podqnpfx8dZKFirmDu86UEV9/dh 5aTLJGphkDJE1bdanaY99lpw9gh/CnLx4enR8zgjYVb0Z4RdSSN4rW2s1ngHgOLD61S1jw +9iug8Gk2E70WDYZMJfRMroQvWrtgV7JoxPEiaqE+8gu2JKuPYYlDJ9kbk4HfrIW9MJ3xg Ji/XG5HRzeoP0i2zI3GQ6v5x8nmChF23GnxecN2lmMCgx9TtXJnE2E5qAZUjtg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1637784193; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=pPJuODtjhfm250YVIy7B2Ll6HvrGQToJrytGoc44cppo/twICLCofNOJrt2NnETRIjUDIl kKGklLp+OBF+lL1uANqDndXVDDF9EH6Ezie2eRqu1lVq/nDO2XNo9kKT7alsU5ecw+oIel mp5QyskQI/UNdlqZYFF6UrnKFSlSD2aB/1PXiiW1OiRk6JjQ1hJhaxl14FbuAClFc7EzGx Rz+pA6WhvmvZpEukmL9i23F8R8bQICNHOuWmmmPr2e7TXqI/9NvOREQYhoKuQsY55FWNoz nruSI2esKGxfsen0ukAH3ClsFv6e/hPHSIQ+cvQ6CBVS3kkk2dAtWqqFsVzs8Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.49 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 7ECE12E13E X-Spam-Score: -3.49 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: 7jlgN6O/0+0F --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2021-11-24, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:03:18 +0100 > "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" 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 =E2=80=9CExecutable=E2=80=9D, as CDDLv1 calls it) distribution do no= t activate. >> Therefore, the analysis is simpler,=20 > 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. > And that combining that work with GPLv2 code in > source form is OK because GPLv2 is not violated because the > incompatible CDDL requirements are only activated when distributed in > executable form? > > If that's the case that would be the first explanation that > doesn't undermine copyleft that I come across, and that is OK for me. This is exactly the case, as I understand it... It is precisely because the terms of the GPLv2 and CDDL licenses do not conflict in terms of source code, the only conflict arises when you actually distribute binaries. It is by no means *ideal* by Free Software principles and goals. It is so nuanced, non-obvious, tricky and complicated, which is why it keeps getting rehashed over the years. It is a bit obnoxious in my personal opinion, but as a layman/non-lawyer reading it, seems technically and legally permissible, as long as you do not distribute the compiled binaries. The fact that GNU Guix can technically handle this issue correctly by marking the package as not substitutable, in other words "do not distribute binaries of this package", is a very interesting workaround. Thankfully there are very few cases like this! live well, vagrant --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQRlgHNhO/zFx+LkXUXcUY/If5cWqgUCYZ6aSAAKCRDcUY/If5cW qt5uAP43EQDYIZfo/IuycUDBaDhPAxEwt8e1oPivZuZsBef5SQD8DCp+YdsIF4r1 IoIAgZ3+3TIH2HONUd3dS5Aa8fWJIAk= =7l9u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--