OSNews

This is entirely a function of the GPL licensing of Linux, and has nothing to do with the licensing of ZFS: Apple is also working on ZFS as well, and there's no conflict there between whatever they're linking to that's proprietary and not released to the general public, and the rest of the code (BSD license, I believe).

Everything in life has a price: in the GPL license, you end up being restricted from using someone else's closed code because of an insistence on license purity, while with MIT/BSD the price you pay is there's no guarantee that you'll get any of the interesting changes, but you can use it (or anyone else) anywhere without a big deal. The question is: what are your goals, and what price are you willing and able to pay, because both licenses may have advantages to you, and also both may have advantages to you, all as a matter of context.

I don't know what you've been drinking but it must be strong!
If ZFS was licensed with BSD 2 clause for example instead of CDDL, then there wouldn't have been any issue with reusing ZFS code inside the Linux kernel.

CDDL is GPL incompatible because Sun wanted to avoid the risk of having their code reused inside the Linux kernel.

The CDDL was written at a time when ~70% of opensource projects are under the GPL, yet it's GPL-incompatible and that's the fault of the GPL?
Bullshit!

You may dislike the GPL, but at least it was written to defend the liberty of the users, the CDDL was written to protect Sun from Free Software competition (Linux), barf!

"I don't understand how CDDL was compatible with BSD license but not GPL."

Not that I understand it all either to be honest, but I am guessing the same reason the BSD license is not compatible with the GPL.

Either you're joking or you're mistaken: there are two BSD license versions: the three clause one or the two clause one, the two clause BSD license is fully compatible with the GPL, the three clause one isn't.

The original BSD license was the three clause one, but now it's the two clause one which is the most widely used (if memory serves NetBSD have recently decided to change their license to the two clause one).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)

This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.

Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term “intellectual property”
.
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)

This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.

Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term “intellectual property

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

Are you serious? I was under the impression you are free to use the tools, but when you modify it they expect the changes back. Otherwise ppl using Gimp to retouch their photos could be sued too (if they don't release the photos under GPL).

? That doesn't make any sense. The GPL is open to everyone. It just says that if you use GPL code then you HAVE to share back.

With BSD, hey don't have to share back, you can use, use, use like Apple and MS. Make Billions and don't have to give anything back.

I think you have that mixed up.

BSD = Open to free loaders.

GPL = Open to anyone that is open back to you.

That is no different then going to work everyday. No one wants to go to work and then not get a pay check.

That's just pure FUD.

GCC's GPL covers derived works of GCC, not the programs that are compiled with GCC. The GCC runtime library even has specific exceptions for programs compiled with GCC, though I can't be bothered to provide references to the specific license details. I'll leave that for you.