Mason Loring Bliss schreef op do 02-09-2021 om 17:24 [-0400]: > Maxime writes, > > > The GPL violation is very unfortunate. It would have been nice to > > have some ZFS support in Guix. > > There is no GPL violation. Gaslighting in an attempt to sabotage the > adoption of high-quality free software is somewhat poor form and not at all > useful. Indeed, gaslighing is poor form and not at all useful. But why are you suggesting I'm gaslightling here? Did you just read these last two sentences of the e-mail? If you read all of it, you'd have seen my explanation of why I believe there's a GPL violation, and two relevant links to articles by SFLC and FSF. Also see IRC logs: https://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-09-02.log https://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-09-03.log While ultimately it's a matter for the courts to decide on, I believe I've reasonable grounds to believe it's a GPL violation and explained why, so I don't see any gaslightling here. And I'm not ‘sabotaging’ anything. In fact, I'm _helping_ adoption of ZFS, by reviewing the patch and giving some suggestions. There is just the practical problem of the in-my-eyes probable GPL violation (your opinion on whether it's a GPL violation might vary). > To be clear, the one singular thing that would be a GPL violation would be > Guix building Linux with ZFS built in and then distributing that binary. > Users can build ZFS into their kernels and use them and that's fine as long > as they don't distribute them. Guix can script this to make it easy for > users to build ZFS into their kernels and that would not be a violation. > The only possible violation is distribution of a binary Linux kernel with > ZFS compiled into it. See the previous mail and the IRC logs for why I find this reasoning rather flimsy. > Hope that helps. No, your libel about ‘Maxime is gaslighting’ doesn't help. And your paragraph about why you think there's no GPL violation here is nothing I haven't read before. I probably won't be reading and replying to your mails anymore. Bye, Maxime