Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0704171505390.1696@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Lang <david.lang@...italinsight.com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
cc:	Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczek@...y.mif.pg.gda.pl>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	"David R. Litwin" <presently42@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:

> 
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>>> Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was
>>>> allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another
>>>> license which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr
>>>> argument ?
>>>>
>>>> kloczek
>>>
>>> Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the "or any later version of
>>> this license" clause (except, now, the version being used with the Linux
>>> kernel)
>>
>> So after around commented swiching to GPL v3 it will be possible to start
>> work on GLP v3.5 which will allow easy reuse CDDL code under Linux .. good
>> to know :o)
>
> Nope. Note that I said "Except the Linux Kernel".
>
> After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release of
> the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2

actually the GPLv2 only predates the GPLv3 draft by several years

there are quite a few other projects that are also GPLv2 only

> So the Linux kernel will *never* be able to have a version of the GPL other
> than the current one applied. This change might have occurred without the
> knowledge or agreement of the FSF, who maintain the GPL, but since it was
> done with the complete agreement of all the current developers - and assumed
> agreement of any who contributed and are no longer able to consent (since
> their code was originally released under GPLv2) - it should stand. After all,
> the form of the license that applies to the kernel is shipped with the
> kernels sources.

the 'or later' version is not part of the GPLv2 license itself, it's a burb that 
the FSF suggests that people use so that they (the FSF) can retroactivly change 
the license of the code that other people create.

The dispute over the GPLv3 is if these retroactive chagnes aer to the benifit or 
detriment of the people who created the code.

> In fact, from the copy in the latest Git:
> NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
> services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
> of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
> Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
> Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
> kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
>
> Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>
>                        Linus Torvalds
> -----------------

take a look at the date that this went into the kernel

>> How many years it will take ? two, three ? more ? (it will be
>> good to know how long we must wait on ZFS under Linux .. I don't belive in
>> rewriting ZFS code time and make it so useable on production as *now* it
>> is possible under Solaris/*BSD/MOX and passing all pointless arguing will
>> take shorter time) .. or maybe never because some people says
>> something like "Linux is in GPL cage".
>
> Linux is not in any cage - Solaris and ZFS, because of the CDDL, sit inside
> the cage. I, personally, will *NEVER* release code meant to be "open source"
> under a license that makes demands like those of the user.

and similarly, many people will not release code under a license that lets other 
people change the terms years later.

David Lang

Powered by blists - more mailing lists