[kangar00]

Oraclepocalypse? Aren't their lawyers busy with Google?: http://fortune.com/2016/05/13/google-oracle-java-email/

Here's another post about GPL violations related to combining ZFS and Linux: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/

Quote from that:

"Is The Analysis Different With Source-Only Distribution?

We cannot close discussion without considering one final unique aspect to this situation. CDDLv1 does allow for free redistribution of ZFS source code. We can also therefore consider the requirements when distributing Linux and ZFS in source code form only.

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 “Executable”, as CDDLv1 calls it) distribution do not activate. 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, 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.

We note that Debian's decision to place source-only ZFS in a relegated area of their archive called contrib, is an innovative solution. Debian fortunately had a long-standing policy that contrib was specifically designed for source code that, while licensed under an acceptable license for Debian's Free Software Guidelines, also has a default use that can cause licensing problems for downstream Debian users. Therefore, Debian communicates clearly to their users that this code is problematic by keeping it out of their main archive. Furthermore, Debian does not distribute any binary form of zfs.ko.

(Full disclosure: Conservancy has a services agreement with Debian in which Conservancy occasionally gives its opinions, in a non-legal capacity, to Debian on topics of Free Software licensing, and gave Debian advice on this matter under that agreement. Conservancy is not Debian's legal counsel.)"

[espadrine]

> Aren't their lawyers busy with Google?

They would only bite a golden hand anyway.

> We are also concerned that it may infringe Oracle's copyrights in ZFS.

The Software Freedom Conservancy saying that is a bit scary. I am somewhat less afraid of Linux copyright holders suing.

[jldugger]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Canonical is taking a calculated risk here that Oracle doesn't actually care, or would be actively helpful if it meant spiting Redhat.

[pilif]

Of course Oracle also owns part of the copyright to the kernel. They still employ some kernel developers. And oracle could certainly sue distributors for violating their copyright (not on zfs, but on Linux)

[tzs]

> Nevertheless, there may be arguments for contributory and/or indirect copyright infringement in many jurisdictions

In the United States there are two kinds of indirect infringement: contributory infringement and vicarious infringement.

Contributory infringement can occur when you know that someone else is or will directly infringe, and you substantially aid that by inducing, causing, or materially aiding their direct infringement. That can include providing the tools and equipment they use to infringe.

Vicarious infringement can occur when someone who is a direct infringer is your agent or under your control.

A very important aspect of both of these types of indirect infringement is that they make you liable for the direct infringement of someone else. If there is no someone else who is a direct infringer, then you cannot possibly be a contributory or vicarious infringer.

[belorn]

In Sweden, the Pirate Bay tried and failed using a similar argument. The court instead found a law that targeted biker bars, where a law had been created to make it easier to shut down such facilities and prosecute its owners under contributory crimes. The prosecutor only need to convince the court that the average use is primary of a criminal nature, which in the Pirate Bay case consisted of a screenshot of the top 100 list. There didn't need to be someone that was found guilty of an actual infringement.

[pmoriarty]

"Downstream users should consider carefully before engaging in even source-only distribution."

Why would Free/open-source distros have to distribute ZFS source code? Couldn't they simply provide a method for downloading the source from the already existing ZFS repos and then compile the source? Wouldn't that be enough?