>Sun deliberately made the CDDL incompatible with the GPL! > >This is a claim supported primarily by one former employee of Sun. Others disagree. And even if

>Sun deliberately made the CDDL incompatible with the GPL! > >This is a claim supported primarily by one former employee of Sun. Others disagree. And even if it was verifiably true: What about Open Source values? Since when is the GPL the only acceptable Open Source license? Lots of hand-waving and false equivalency here. We're not talking about "Open Source values", we're talking specifically about the Linux kernel. And the Linux kernel is GPLv2 licensed. The Software Freedom Conservancy analyzed the situation and determined that a GPL-licensed project cannot legally incorporate CDDL code into the binary[0]. FWIW, Ubuntu has done so anyway via a kernel module and yet has to be sued for it, but the Linux kernel project may still refrain from doing so out of an abundance of caution. I believe someone else summed it up quite well when they said (paraphrasing), "Solaris intentionally made ZFS difficult to incorporate into Linux by the licensing, so the Linux developers are (understandably) tired of bending over backwards to try to accommodate ZFS." [0]https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/