Oraclepocalypse? Aren&#x27;t their lawyers busy with Google?: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;fortune.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;05&#x2F;13&#x2F;google-oracle-java-email&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;fortune.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;05&#x2F;13&#x2F;google-oracle-java-email&#x2F;</a><p>Here&#x27;s another post about GPL violations related to combining ZFS and Linux:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sfconservancy.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2016&#x2F;feb&#x2F;25&#x2F;zfs-and-linux&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sfconservancy.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2016&#x2F;feb&#x2F;25&#x2F;zfs-and-linux&#x2F;</a><p>Quote from that:<p>&quot;Is The Analysis Different With Source-Only Distribution?<p>We cannot close discussion without considering one final unique aspect to this situation. CDDLv1 does allow for free redistribution of ZFS source code. We can also therefore consider the requirements when distributing Linux and ZFS in source code form only.<p>Pure distribution of source with no binaries is undeniably different. When distributing source code and no binaries, requirements in those sections of GPLv2 and CDDLv1 that cover modification and&#x2F;or binary (or “Executable”, as CDDLv1 calls it) distribution do not activate. Therefore, the analysis is simpler, and we find no specific clause in either license that prohibits source-only redistribution of Linux and ZFS, even on the same distribution media.<p>Nevertheless, there may be arguments for contributory and&#x2F;or indirect copyright infringement in many jurisdictions. We present no specific analysis ourselves on the efficacy of a contributory infringement claim regarding source-only distributions of ZFS and Linux. However, in our GPL litigation experience, we have noticed that judges are savvy at sniffing out attempts to circumvent legal requirements, and they are skeptical about attempts to exploit loopholes. Furthermore, we cannot predict Oracle&#x27;s view — given its past willingness to enforce copyleft licenses, and Oracle&#x27;s recent attempts to adjudicate the limits of copyright in Court. Downstream users should consider carefully before engaging in even source-only distribution.<p>We note that Debian&#x27;s decision to place source-only ZFS in a relegated area of their archive called contrib, is an innovative solution. Debian fortunately had a long-standing policy that contrib was specifically designed for source code that, while licensed under an acceptable license for Debian&#x27;s Free Software Guidelines, also has a default use that can cause licensing problems for downstream Debian users. Therefore, Debian communicates clearly to their users that this code is problematic by keeping it out of their main archive. Furthermore, Debian does not distribute any binary form of zfs.ko.<p>(Full disclosure: Conservancy has a services agreement with Debian in which Conservancy occasionally gives its opinions, in a non-legal capacity, to Debian on topics of Free Software licensing, and gave Debian advice on this matter under that agreement. Conservancy is not Debian&#x27;s legal counsel.)&quot;