> Yes, the "GPL condom" attempt doesn't work at all.  It's been shot down > a long time ago in the courts. SFLC maintains there is no kernel licensing issue[1]. As a side note, even Hellwig's suit against VMware was dismissed (he may appeal)[2]. Debian and Canonical base their decision to ship DKMS source for ZFS on Linux[3]. The GPL does not disqualify a user from compiling ZFS or Linux however they see fit. It is only the users' distribution rights that come into question. No one is combing ZFS into Linux or even distributing binary modules here; we're following the terms of GPL. > My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant.  Sun explicitly did not > want their code to work on Linux, so why would we do extra work to get > their code to work properly? 1. Should your personal feelings affect the quality of the Linux kernel? I say no. 2. Did Sun or Oracle ever release any statement of any kind that backs your statement? 3. What extra work is being done here aside from the dropping of a pseudo-protection, the "GPL ONLY" symbol export? Something tells me, even if someone else did "the work" and submitted patches, you would find a reason to tell them to get stuffed and leave it "as-is". With all of that... why have ANY kind of tolerance for out of tree kernel modules at all? [1] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.html [2] https://opensource.com/law/16/8/gpl-enforcement-action-hellwig-v-vmware [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/04/msg00006.html