&gt; What this kind of analysis, which is very common, misses is this: there&#x27;s potentially two &quot;works&quot; that need talking about here, not just one.<p>I agree this is only one side of the analysis (does zfs.ko fall under the Linux kernel GPLv2?), but that&#x27;s also the only question that the OP can credibly address (because SFC is a copyright holder in Linux, not in ZFS).<p>&gt; The other potential work though is the module-and-Linux-kernel (and possibly many other bits too), delivered as one combined work. Is that a separate work as per copyright law? If so, is that work a derivative (of both the kernel and the module)? This is a much lower bar, and means that the combined work can only be distributed in accordance with the licenses of both the kernel and the module.<p>That line of reasoning would upend pretty much all open source licensing as we know it. E.g., paragraph 9 of the OSI&#x27;s Open Source Definition [1] clearly states that &quot;The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software.&quot; The fact that the OSI has accepted the GPLv2 [2] as an open source license implies that they (for one) do not agree.<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensource.org&#x2F;osd" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensource.org&#x2F;osd</a><p>2. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensource.org&#x2F;licenses&#x2F;alphabetical" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensource.org&#x2F;licenses&#x2F;alphabetical</a>