> It is not really rewritten. It has several direct calls into Linux functionality that don't go via SPL, but it's also unclear that simply adding an abstracti

> It is not really rewritten. It has several direct calls into Linux functionality that don't go via SPL, but it's also unclear that simply adding an abstraction layer is a meaningful mechanism to avoid derivation. > what did change was meant to use for interfaces that are provided by the kernel to allow proprietary modules to be ported There are no such interfaces in Linux. > the claim that writing a brand new TV show script inspired by another forms a derivative work is to claim that writing things from scratch forms a derivative work. I didn't make that claim. The analogy in question involves taking an existing work and modifying it such that it includes components of another work. > It is the distinction lawyers are making. It's the distinction a lawyer that you've spoken to is making. > Do you have bar numbers of these lawyers? Yes. > Is there any reason to think that they were thinking that zfs.ko somehow used GPL exported symbols or some other thing that is not actually true that does not involve taking your word for it? No. > Your claims are inconsistent with that. My claim is that I have reason to believe that, under copyright law, ZoL is a derivative work of Linux and as such is subject to the terms of the GPL. If the final legal determination is that it's not a derivative work then the GPL is irrelevant.