I knew your pen name was familiar because I was liking your other comments in the recent RH threads. What's amusing is I previously thought RH was far too prec

I knew your pen name was familiar because I was liking your other comments in the recent RH threads. What's amusing is I previously thought RH was far too precious re: its interpretation of the GPL, especially re: ZFS. > Notably, Oracle does not include ZFS with Oracle Linux. As I said, they could easily clear this up, but they haven't. > Oracle could relicense ZFS at any time, or make an explicit statement about its legal status. They have not done so after 10 years. That would make this easy, but unfortunately easy is not the case we have here. Just as RH has chosen strict compliance with the GPL re RHEL, I think strict compliance with the GPLv2 is what is required here. Someone, I wish it was RH, should say "We've made a mistake. The GPL is not a suicide pact." For instance, interpreting any object which dynamically links to a GPL licensed work as a derived work is fundamentally anti-business, anti-interoperability, and, I'd argue, anti-FOSS. Being GPL compliant does not mean blithely accepting whatever legal claptrap FSF and SFC can summon.