On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> 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. As a technical matter, Fedora could ship ZFS source only. I don't know whether that would help the legal issues. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
