Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?)

[zimoun]

Hi Florian,

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 15:40, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" 
<pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> wrote:

>>> I don't know if that convinces maintainers to change decisions.
>>
>> This decision is consistent with the analysis [1] done by Software
>> Conservancy Freedom, at least.
>
> I did not speak about one decision.

About which decision are you talking about?  I am sorry if I have
misread or misunderstood.  From my readings, the second part of that
thread is an appeal about previous clear decisions:

 1. distributing source of ZFS
 2. not-distributing substitutes of ZFS

Both are consistent with the legal analysis of SFC [1].

1: <https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/>


> What I meant is that maybe Denis argued “dynamic linking creates a
> derivative work” if and only if “ZFS source code is a derivative
> work of Linux”.

I have no opinion; because IANAL.  As Jelle jokingly said on IRC [2], it
is a typical WANAX session*. :-)  As I suggested here [3], because WANAL,
I do not understand what we are discussing and on which legal basis this
discussion tries to appeal the decision made by Guix long time ago about
ZFS based on [1], among other things.

The appeal cannot happen here but it has to be raised to FSF lawyers.
IMHO.  I mean, it appears sane to openly discuss any topic, for sure,
and freely rehash previous decisions.  However, here I miss what could
be the conclusion because a) it is legal speculations since the case
have never been pleaded in Court and b) many of us are not qualified to
parse all lengthy judicial documents – what a lawyer is daily doing,
IIUC friends’ job. :-)

2: <http://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-11-24.log#172129>
3: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-11/msg00107.html>


Cheers,
simon

*pattern of WANAX session: «I am not a X but my strong opinion on
related-to-X is …». :-)