I wanted to point out that the Software Freedom Conservancy has published a
blog post on this topic today:
http://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ and covers things
like why the licenses are incompatible, how it doesn't matter if it's static
or dynamically linked, etc.
And distributing them side by side and letting people combine them on their
own? That argument didn't work when Steve Jobs tried it with GCC when he
worked at NeXT. On that sort of topic I especially liked their comment about
how in that case "there may be arguments for contributory and/or indirect
copyright infringement in many jurisdictions ... in our GPL litigation
experience, we have noticed that judges are savvy at sniffing out attempts to
circumvent legal requirements, and they are skeptical about attempts to
exploit loopholes."
And since it's copyright infringement in both directions (violating both CDDL
and GPL) Oracle's copyrights come to bear. This seems to validate the
concerns I had expressed about casting doubt that that (referring to Oracle):
"given its past willingness to enforce copyleft licenses, and Oracle's recent
attempts to adjudicate the limits of copyright in Court. Downstream users
should consider carefully before engaging in even source-only distribution."
