On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Gerald B. Cox <gb...@bzb.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham <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.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
