Am 14.01.2016 um 20:15 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Gerald B. Cox <gb...@bzb.us <mailto:gb...@bzb.us>> wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham <nott...@splat.cc <mailto:nott...@splat.cc>> wrote: As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from a CTO who's trying to sell me the thing they're talking about the licensing of. We certainly could send that interpretation of CDDL/GPL and the kernel to the legal team... but I'm not sure they'd agree with it. Well, if Lawrence Livermore is doing it, and Canonical apparently plans to do it, it probably would be a good idea to get a determination from the legal team. I don't care one way or another, I use BTRFS - but we shouldn't be saying there are license issues if there aren't. I also found this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ZFS ZFS is licensed under the CDDL <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDL>, a popular and widely used OSI-approved open source license <http://opensource.org/licenses/category>, that is recognized by the FSF <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CDDL> as a free software license, but is incompatible with the GNU GPL. Because of that ZFS cannot be added to the Linux kernel directly. It can, however, be distributed as a DKMS package separate from the main kernel package
oh yeah - bring a DKMS package out of tree *for your filesystems* in the mix and wait for bugreports of users in trouble....
do it at your own - but don't expect it a good idea for a general purpose distribution and *no* "but others do" is no valid justification
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
