grub-extras legal and technical status (was Re: ZFS imported into GRUB)

[Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko]

On 12/02/2010 07:24 PM, KESHAV P.R. wrote:
> What about other grub-extras?
>
>   
This has nothing to do with ZFS import. Please don't try to jump in at
remotely similar point to advance your general ideas but start a new thread.
> Lua is under MIT license. Although I am not well versed in all these
> licensing/legal issues, isn't MIT license compatible with GPL.
>
>   
As I already explained the whole grub-extras is license-compatible with
GPLv3+. If it wasn't it wouldn't be in grub-extras at all.
grub-extras is only when we feel like we can't guarantee the code legal
cleanness to the high standards of GNU project. Every grub-extras
functionality would need separate legal review to consider both
usefulness and legal risk.
If the standard grub parser isn't advanced enough for your needs please
detail what your needs are in separate thread.
> gPXE/Etherboot is under GPL2.
>
>   
Only the part which is GPLv2+ is imported. And this branch isn't
functional so its importing to anything is out of the question.
> 915resolution
Is mostly an unclean hack adapted from a standalone program by someone
else than the original author.
>  and ntldr-img (which is grub4dos functionality - right?)
> are under GPL3 (COPYING files in the respective repos).
>
>   
I have never checked this one n details but it seems not to conform to
usual design. I don't think it should be imported.
> Many users and packagers don't know about the existence of
> grub-extras,
It's not a reason. GNU project never had and doesn't have a goal of
advertising other packages by including them. (it doesn't mean that
other projects aren't useful)
>  especially about lua and zfs. If there are no legal
> issues there is no point in keeping them in separate repos.
Just check the reasons I explained the last time you asked. Nothing
changed from that time.
>  Regards.
>
> Keshav
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 16:54, Robert Millan <address@hidden> wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following our new strategy with regard to Oracle code, we (GRUB
>> maintainers) have decided to grant an exception to our usual policy and
>> import ZFS code from grub-extras into official GRUB.
>>
>> Our usual policy is to require copyright assignment for all new code, so
>> that FSF can use it to defend users' freedom in court.  If that's not
>> possible, at least a disclaimer asserting authorship (i.e. that no
>> copyright infringement has been committed).  The purpose of this, as
>> always, is ensuring that GRUB is a legally safe codebase.
>>
>> The ZFS code that has been imported into GRUB derives from the
>> OpenSolaris version of GRUB Legacy.  On one hand, this code was released
>> to the public under the terms of the GNU GPL.  On the other, binary
>> releases of Solaris included this modified GRUB, and as a result
>> Oracle/Sun is bound by the GPL.
>>
>> We believe that these two factors give us very strong reassurance that:
>>
>> a) Oracle owns the copyright to this code
>> and
>> b) Oracle is licensing it under GPL
>>
>> and therefore it is completely safe to use this in GRUB.
>>
>> We're looking forward to this code import will foster collaboration on
>> ZFS support for GRUB.  Our understanding is that next version of
>> Solaris will ship with GRUB 2, and so we expect the whole OpenSolaris
>> ecosystem to do this move as well.  We encourage downstream distributors
>> to anticipate this by preparing their transition from the old, legacy
>> version of GRUB (0.97) which is no longer supported by GRUB developers.
>>
>>
>> Finally, a word about patents.  Software patents are terribly harmful to
>> free software, and to IT in general.  We believe they should be
>> abolished.  However, until that happens, we need to take measures to
>> protect our users.  We recognize it is practically impossible for end
>> users to archieve a situation where they're completely safe from patent
>> infringement (even if they pay so-called "patent taxes" to specific
>> companies).
>>
>> However, we encourage our users to make careful choices when importing
>> technology that is designed in an in-door development model (rather
>> than in the community), because it's prone to be heavily patented.
>>
>> This is the reason why, when we (the GNU project) developed the GPL, we
>> included certain provisions in it to ensure a patent holder can't
>> benefit from the freedoms we gave them and at the same time use patents
>> to undermine these freedoms for others.
>>
>> Thanks to this, and due to the fact that Oracle is bound to the terms
>> of the GNU GPL when it comes to GRUB, we believe this renders patents
>> covering ZFS basically harmless to GRUB users.  If the patents
>> covering GRUB are held by Oracle, they can't use them against GRUB
>> users, and if they're held by other parties, the GPL provisions will
>> prevent Oracle from paying a tax only for themselves, so if they will
>> fight alongside the community instead of betraying it.
>>
>> Let this serve as yet another example on why so-called "permissive"
>> licenses aren't always a guarantee that the code covered by them can be
>> used freely.  If you intend for your code to be free for all users,
>> always use the latest version of the GPL.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Millan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Grub-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>
>   


-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature