Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by boomboomsubban 2116 days ago
I'm saying that Oracle couldn't retract the releases already released under a free license, getting rid of OpenZFS altogether. They can and have relicensed the codebase, but we can just pull from the last version released under the CDDL.

From my understanding of open source projects released under a new license, they often can create a similar fork at the license change time where a version exists under the old license too. The exception is if they use the GPL version that allows updating the license
1 comments
hnlmorg 2116 days ago
> I'm saying that Oracle couldn't retract the releases already released under a free license

Nobody is suggesting they retract older version. In fact the exact opposite has been said on multiple occasions: any new license would be signified by a semver (semantic version) bump. So you're arguing against a point that was never made in the first place.

> getting rid of OpenZFS altogether

OpenZFS code would be unaffected because it's forked from a version prior to the semver re-license bump.

> From my understanding of open source projects released under a new license, they often can create a similar fork at the license change time where a version exists under the old license too.

Fork or semver bump. Which is exactly what I was talking about. Also notice that what you described there contradicts what you said would happen ("getting rid of OpenZFS") in literally the same comment.

---

If Oracle own the copyright then Oracle can re-license. They'd have to bump the version number and the previous versions with the older license would forever remain CDDL. But legally they can do it and it wouldn't affect OpenZFS licensing (aside that OpenZFS might then no longer be able to incorporate ZFS code -- assuming ZFS's new license is incompatible with CDDL. But things start to get very murky down that road.)

link
boomboomsubban 2116 days ago
>Also notice that what you described there contradicts what you said would happen ("getting rid of OpenZFS") in literally the same comment

My argument has been that Oracle can't do this the entire time, but that's why its unfair to say there is Oracle code in OpenZFS. It makes it sound like Oracle has some power over OpenZFS, which is just not the case.

link
hnlmorg 2115 days ago
> My argument has been that Oracle can't do this the entire time

No it wasn't. You kept bringing Sun Microsystems into the discussion and they're not relevant regardless of whether we're discussing ZFS or OpenZFS because Oracle own Suns IP. Moreover, and I can't stress this enough, nobody ever suggested OpenZFS would be "got rid of" except for yourself! You created that straw man argument.

> that's why its unfair to say there is Oracle code in OpenZFS. It makes it sound like Oracle has some power over OpenZFS, which is just not the case.

It's not unfair to say that because that is the literal truth. And I was very clear about not only the distinction between ZFS and OpenZFS but also the limited scope in which Oracle could control OpenZFS (if the OpenZFS guys want to re-license they'd still need Oracle's approval for any Sun IP (which Oracle now own) that remains within OpenZFS code).

Claiming that Oracle code doesn't exist within OpenZFS or that Oracle doesn't still have a say with regards to OpenZFS's licence would be as ignorant as saying Oracle could "get rid of OpenZFS".

I suggest re-reading my initial comment that sparked this discussion. I thought it was pretty clear about the distinction between ZFS and OpenZFS and about how much/little control Oracle have over the licenses of each.

All that aside, one comment you made elsewhere did interest me: whether Oracle could sue Canonical due to copyright grounds with Oracle code in Linux. I don't know GPL well enough to know if this is possible but it's a truly terrifying thought given the amount of contributors to Linux and the prevalence of Linux in propitiatory systems like phones, routers and other places that might contain closed SoC modules.

link