> You just keep throwing the argument on whether ZFS is derivative or this or that but it is simply irrelevant. And you keep saying things like this without ex

> You just keep throwing the argument on whether ZFS is derivative or this or that but it is simply irrelevant. And you keep saying things like this without explaining them. Perhaps I've failed in being as clear as I possibly can be, and for that I'm sorry, but this is last comment I'll add to this very long thread, because where as I've have provided references to the text, and tried to explain my thinking, you have not. > The installer will one-click link the two for you AFAIK this is false, as I believe I've said before. The zfs.ko is prelinked. > The ZFS module they ship only works with the very same kernel version they ship and viceversa (this for me is already enough to fail the "it is not derivative" claims -- but that's another story). So, your idea is because a binary module is dependent in some way upon an underlying substrate like a library or a kernel (as opposed to the source being dependent), it is a derivative work? I think that's a fine test to propose as being the test for whether a work is derivative, but you will need to point at some textual basis for that belief. So far, I don't see one from you, and AFAIK the GPLv2 does not propose a specific boundary itself other than that of "derived work." > It is, in my view, impossible to claim this as "mere aggregation". Again -- you have to explain "Why?" of this bare assertion. You use language like "clearly" and "evident" and "impossible" when you haven't explained yourself with reference to the GPL text and/or copyright law. > A license for X software could claim that you can only distribute X alongside other software which has an even number of lines of source code and you'd have to comply with it. Not because "other software" is derivative from X or not, but because you have to comply with it to copy X. There are boundaries to what are permissible covenants in a copyright license. Copyright is a actually a rather weak IP right, and one example of a very broad exception/exemption would be copyright "fair use". It's fair use to copy API definitions, for instance.