On 26/08/2013 23:37, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:30:05 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> >>>> The licensing conflict means that would not be possible. You have the >>>> install the kernel source and then merge in the ZFS source yourself, >>>> it can't be done for you and distributed. >>> >>> Why do you believe this? >>> >>> ZFS id doubtlessly an own "work" independent from the rest of the Linux >>> kernel and for this reason, adding ZFS just creates a collective work >>> that is not affected by the GPL. >> >> But the CCDL licence of ZFS precludes its being distributed with the >> kernel. At least, that's how I understand it and the fact that no distro >> distributes a ZFS-enabled kernel makes me believe it is true. > > Did you ever read the CDDL? > > People who believe that there is a problem use a wrong interpretation of the > GPL. The CDDL definitely does not prevent combinations with other software.
The problem is not with CDDL, the problem is with the GPL. ZFS in the kernel requires that ZFS as shipped be relicensed as GPL, it forms a derivative work of the kernel. No external license can change the terms of the GPL. Admittedly this gets murky due to XFS. But the clincher would appear to be that Oracle own ZFS and also distribute a branded RedHat derivative distro. To the best of my knowledge Oracle themselves do not ship a ZFS-enabled kernel. Surely, as the owners of the code and with a large dev team, Oracle themselves could solve this issue by doing just that? But they haven't done so. Especially as ZFS is production-ready today whereas the competing btrfs is not. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
