Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That's a question of packaging and bundling, which is not covered by the > >> GPL. But kernel code and kernel modules are not mere bundles, they are > >> derivative works by virtue of how tightly they integrate with the > >> kernel, and how the code can only ever run unchanged on Linux. > > > > If a kernel uses ZFS, you have to decide on whether the kernel is a > > derivative > > work of ZFS or whether just a collective work exists. > > > > _Using_ ZFS definitely does not make ZFS a derivative work. > > I never said it did. I was concentrating on those parts of ZFS that > interact with kernel internals - that might not be been entirely clear
You wrote that modules become derivatives of the Linux kernel and this is the same as writing ZFS would become a kernel derivative. The linux kernel does not come with a modern VFS implementation, so if you like to use ZFS on Linux you first need to provide a suitable VFS interface. ZFS will not interact with the Linux kernel directly but with the expected VFS layer. Shouldn't it be possible to put this intermediate layer under a license that makes even the zealots happy? > You are making a spurious claim by saying "you have to decide on whether > the kernel is a derivative work of ZFS or ..." If you go the non-lawful Stallman way and insist in a derivative work to be build, then the linux kernel is the derivative work. I prefer to assume that this just builds a collective work ;-) > In what possible way could the entire Linux kernel be considered a > derivative work of ZFS? That doesn't make any sense. I am just quoting claims from Stallman ;-) Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (uni) [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
