CDDL+GPL and stuff

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Konstantin Svist wrote:
> Well, it's pretty easy to argue about corner cases - but what about ZFS?
> It was not written for Linux specifically, but it doesn't "link" to it, 
> at least not as-is. Does altering ZFS code to make it link with Linux 
> kernel violate the GPL?

I don't know. That depends on the kind of alterations you make.

> Or is it just a concern that it's a gray area?
> What about using a layer - a small piece of GPL/LGPL code that will be 
> the only thing that links to the Kernel directly - and on its other 
> side, to existing ZFS code? (I think I heard that that's what ATI/nVidia 
> do with their proprietary drivers, by the way)

I've seen several proposals for creating 'wrappers' like this. One
very creative one is to turn a GPL program or library into a standalone
program and to interact with it using sockets, CORBA or similar
technologies instead of linking. Since the programs are then at
arm's length, supposedly they are not derivative works.

The problem is that many people treat this question as a technical
issue. It's not. It's a legal issue, and so you can't give a bright
technical line like "do this and it's derivative; do that and it isn't".

The only one who can create a bright line is the copyright holder
to the work you're basing yourself on. Linus Torvalds for example
said that applications that run on Linux are not derivative works.
That's a bright line - but only because he said so.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
              Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/