On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 10:38:42 -0500 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. I'm confused by the two above sentences. :) The NVida binary only non free driver's source is only available to AMD/nvidia. The shim that connects it to the kernel has source available, but the driver itself does not. > 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. Nope. The benchmark if it's legal to include something in Fedora is what Fedora Legal says. Thats it. We have (and likely will continue) to disagree with Debian on some things (like mp3). IMHO, someone needs to ask Legal if it can be included. If for some reason things have changed and they say yes, then it would hit the out of tree kmods issues and likely be impractical there. So, no, I don't think it's going to be possible or practical to include ZFS. kevin
Attachment:
pgp7GQS4Mq8Rh.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
