Kirkland: ZFS licensing and Linux

Posted Feb 20, 2016 8:49 UTC (Sat) by Del- (guest, #72641)
In reply to: Kirkland: ZFS licensing and Linux by fandingo
Parent article: Kirkland: ZFS licensing and Linux

> You guys may well be right, but the argument and evidence presented don't formulate anything that can be used to reach a conclusion. Barring such convincing items, the proper action is to defer any decision -- letting the current behavior remain -- until a conclusion can be reached.

It seems you are playing it into the hands of those who want to abuse copyleft. For a company like Canonical, the intent of a license should suffice for them to honour it. With your statements your are supporting those who look for technical weaknesses in current law for their own profit, willingly breaking the intent of the law. There are many examples of it, usually driven by greed at the expense of society.

You need to ask yourself, did the copyright holder of ZFS specifically intend for ZFS not to be used in GNU/Linux? Then ask yourself, do the copyright holders of Linux specifically intend for kernel modules being GPL compatible? Then it should not be so damn hard to conclude. Canonical is going down a path I cannot follow, heck even Facebook puts their resources into btrfs rather than breaking license terms. Is it so damn hard to be a decent member of the open source community.