I just want to pause for a moment to explain how unhinged this reply is. First, never said Linux (or Oracle for that matter) was operating in bad faith. Second, my comment calls ZFS a "hair shirt" for the kernel. A "hair shirt" is an uncomfortable undergarment which religious people/GPL fanatics use to punish themselves.
Popped onto DDG just now, and the explains right there. Also "cilice" within the first few links.
After my unexpected laughter, I had to click. The first 2 hits align with my prior misunderstanding - cue more laughter. One is a t-shirt with a graphic of a very hairy chest/abdomen, the other has the likeness of Chewbacca with "Messy hair / don't care".
No need for anyone else to see for yourselves; saved you a click.
From: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2094/are-cddl...
> The CDDL is a license that does not try to enforce restrictions that would not stand in court but disallows relicensing of code. The fact that on the other side, the CDDL explicitly limits its scope to the files that contain CDDL'd code, allows us make our first conclusion:
> Code under the CDDL and code under the GPL cannot be mixed in a single file.
>The GPL is a license that limits its scope to the so called "work" limit and forbids relicensing of code. This allows us to make the next conclusion:
> Code under the CDDL and code under the GPL cannot be mixed in a single work.
So, that would seem to leave two options - either re-license Linux under a CDDL-compatible license or re-license ZFS under a GPL-compatible license. Clearly re-licensing ZFS would be much easier as it's controlled by a single entity - Oracle.
My opinion is that Oracle are acting in bad faith (probably a default assumption with Oracle to be fair) and deliberately don't want the code to be in Linux.
Edit: Ultimately unless it goes to court, all you can have are legal opinions - there is no legal authority.
Oracle's ZFS code is controlled by a single entity, but OpenZFS (which is what you probably want) is a community fork with copyrights owned by a huge list of people and companies.
In hindsight, an explicit "GPL compatibility clause" like the EUPL has would clearly been a wiser choice, but that wasn't clear in 2005, and it's too late for that now, unfortunately.
On the other hand, you could also blame the GPL for not recognizing that other copyleft licenses exist; they also could have written a compatibility clause in GPL 3. "CDDL is incompatible with the GPL" could also be phrased as "GPL is incompatible with the CDDL".
Yes, I agree; there's a few other topics like this. I call this "hacker conspiracy theories", because at this point that's basically what they are.
I mostly comment on these things for the benefit of innocent onlookers, who were not yet around when all of this went down, and not to convince the person who posted it.