GNU bug report logs - #45692
[PATCH 0/4] Even Better ZFS Support on Guix

Previous Next

Full log

Message #180 received at 45692 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Cc: raid5atemyhomework <raid5atemyhomework <at> protonmail.com>,
 "45692 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <45692 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#45692] [PATCH v4 3/3] gnu: Add ZFS service type.
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 19:17:57 +0200

Hi Maxime,

On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 12:41, Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be> wrote:

> ‘Nevertheless, there may be arguments for contributory and/or indirect copyright
> infringement in many jurisdictions. We present no specific analysis ourselves on
> the efficacy of a contributory infringement claim regarding source-only distributions
> of ZFS and Linux. However, in our GPL litigation experience, we have noticed that
> judges are savvy at sniffing out attempts to circumvent legal requirements, and they
> are skeptical about attempts to exploit loopholes. Furthermore, we cannot predict
> Oracle's view — given its past willingness to enforce copyleft licenses, and Oracle's
> recent attempts to adjudicate the limits of copyright in Court. Downstream users should
> consider carefully before engaging in even source-only distribution.’

The « Nevertheless » is because the previous sentence is:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
[…] 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 distribution media.

Nevertheless, […]
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

My understanding is:

 - binary distribution violates licenses
 - source-only distribution appears to be fine
 - SFC cannot guarantee because all the arguments about source-only
distribution have never been tested in Court.

Moreover, they write an explicit paragraph why « You cannot and should
not rely on this document as legal advice. » ;-)


> I don't quite see a GPL violation anymore if we only distribute unmodified

Good. :-)

> source code.  However, what about freedom (1) and (3) (freedom to [...] and
> change the program in source form and (3) distribute modified versions)?

Each license is free [1].  Therefore, they respect all the freedoms.
The issue is about linking the result and distribute the binary.

1: <https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:CDDL-1.0>

> (*) raid5atemyhomework noted that guix does _not_ distribute source code,
> it only points to source code locations.  I don't quite agree.  From my
> point of view, on whose server the source code is hosted is merely a
> technicality, guix is just ‘out-sourcing’ the source code distribution.
> Besides, ci.guix.gnu.org keeps a copy of the source code, and
> (guix download) will try to download from ci.guix.gnu.org.

Indeed, ci.guix.gnu.org keeps a copy of (as much as possible) source
code.  But ci.guix.gnu.org does not distribute all the corresponding
binaries: see 'arguments' '#:substitutable? #f'.  It is already the
case for the package 'zfs':

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
    (arguments
     `(;; The ZFS kernel module should not be downloaded since the license
       ;; terms don't allow for distributing it, only building it locally.
       #:substitutable? #f
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

<https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/file-systems.scm?id=a4ffe3d145b00736f5fdf53ee2c70a7e48592e83#n1175>

As explained in the initial submission [2], this patch set is just a
"glue" usable by the user locally.  No binaries on the Guix side is
involved. All the source-code is under free license.

2: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/45692#0>


Cheers,
simon

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.