On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote: > Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> Fedora has it's own rules and can ship or not ship what they want. I'm >> perfectly fine with that. As I previously stated, IMO BTRFS is a much >> better choice. My point was simply that I don't believe saying it would >> be a GPL violation to include ZFS in a Linux distribution is one of them. >> If it were, I can't imagine Canonical would be doing it. > > Canonical also has no qualms shipping the NVidia driver, which has the exact > same licensing issue. They decided that they don't care. >
Canonical ships everything as source code, so their justification likely is that they aren't doing binary distribution, for whatever that's worth. The benchmark is probably what Debian and their team thinks of it, because Debian and Fedora have similarly strict guidelines for stuff like this because they *do* care. I don't know if it's possible to talk to the Debian folks about it, because they've clearly discussed it for quite a while[0][1][2]. In terms of legal things, Debian appears to use the SFLC for legal advice about ZFS, and I don't know (nor wish to speculate) whether Red Hat Legal talks to those folks. [0]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=686447 [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/04/msg00006.html [2]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/05/msg00004.html -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
