---------- Message Sent ----------
From: Paolo Del Bene <id3rfix <at> gmail.com>
Date: 09 aprile 2012 19:49
Object: an operating system is not composed by few parts, it's not like a grandmother cake apples
To: legal <legal <at> lists.gpl-violations.org>


an operating system is not composed by few parts, it's not like a grandmother cake apples, infact you can find all the replies to the question about: "is zfs incompatible with the GNU Project ?" discussed on the mailing list of  debian-bsd at lists.debian.org>

They are working with the GNU'S Not Unix Project that is 100% Free Software, to a 100% Free Software port of
FreeBSD, called GNU/KFreeBSD.

the person or the people who have a little of brain, they ask why are you working on zfs, when you could use AdvFS or LVM ?

the only answer I have been able to give was: zfs works.

I do not think a complete answer, because AdvFS is GPLv2 and works fine and was released on a project by HP of Compaq

Lvm too is released under GPL, and it works it is adopted such as in GNU/linux Gentoo, as in GNU/linux Debian, and infact the reply has not satisfied my question.

only few people decided to use really the brain:

Hi folks, I was under the impression that the ZFS kernel code in FreeBSD is original work under the 2C-BSDL . At least the headers in /usr/src/sys/cddl/compat/opensolaris/kern give this impression. So only the userland code (lib and tools) is under CDDL. Can someone clarify this? Thank you! Regards, Hannes 

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk at mit.edu> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:00:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Bug#651624: is zfs incompatible with the GNU Project ? To: Hannes <debian-bsd-list at soulrebel.in-berlin.de> Cc: 651624 at bugs.debian.org On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Hannes wrote: > > I was under the impression that the ZFS kernel code in FreeBSD is original > work under the 2C-BSDL . At least the headers in > /usr/src/sys/cddl/compat/opensolaris/kern > give this impression. > So only the userland code (lib and tools) is under CDDL. My impression was that there was a specific effort to implement a set of headers and in-kernel hooks as original work under the BSDL, that would be sufficient to allow a CDDL-licensed module to be loaded at runtime and still supply ZFS functionality. This way, the stock kernel that is shipped is entirely BSDL, but the existing bulk of the CDDL ZFS code can be used with only minimal changes for compatibility. /usr/src/sys/modules/zfs/Makefile is enlightening on where things come from, most notably /usr/src/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/. These files have the CDDL header in them. -Ben Kaduk

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hannes <debian-bsd-list at soulrebel.in-berlin.de> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:42:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Bug#651624: is zfs incompatible with the GNU Project ? To: debian-bsd at lists.debian.org On 10.02.2012 03:00, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Hannes wrote: > >> >> I was under the impression that the ZFS kernel code in FreeBSD is >> original work under the 2C-BSDL . At least the headers in >> /usr/src/sys/cddl/compat/opensolaris/kern >> give this impression. >> So only the userland code (lib and tools) is under CDDL. > > My impression was that there was a specific effort to implement a set of > headers and in-kernel hooks as original work under the BSDL, that would > be sufficient to allow a CDDL-licensed module to be loaded at runtime > and still supply ZFS functionality. > This way, the stock kernel that is shipped is entirely BSDL, but the > existing bulk of the CDDL ZFS code can be used with only minimal changes > for compatibility. > /usr/src/sys/modules/zfs/Makefile is enlightening on where things come > from, most notably > /usr/src/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/. > These files have the CDDL header in them. Ah, ok. And since CDDL's copyleft is weak, it doesn't spread to the rest of the kernel, when distributed together, right? It may only not be distributed together with GPL-Modules, because those would spread their license, which they couldn't to the CDDL-Code? Did I get that right? I love copyright law :D Regards, Hannes

2012/2/9, Edward Tomasz Napierała <trasz at freebsd.org>: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 09:09:24PM +0100, Paolo Delbene wrote: >> Paolo Delbene >> <id3rfix at gmail.com> 07 febbraio 2012 02:47 >> A: debian-bsd <debian-bsd at lists.debian.org> > FreeBSD license _is_ a BSD license. It's just there are three kinds > of BSD license, and some of FreeBSD code is four-clause. > Yes, it's a known problem with GPL, which seems to have been deliberately > made incompatible with licenses that are not subset of it. Still, it's > not a problem, since there is hardly any useful code licensed under GPL > in the FreeBSD kernel. There were three sound card drivers, but they > were cleaned from GPL in 10-CURRENT. > Simply because ZFS works. > For AdvFS to be useful, it would have to be ported to FreeBSD first. > Also, this would make FreeBSD the sole consumer of this code (ZFS > is being used in other systems, e.g. Illumos). This would also mean > adding GPL-ed code to FreeBSD, which is not really desired. > Also, AdvFS and LVM are nowhere of being functionally equivalent to ZFS.