ZFS.

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:15:49PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> kernel, especially when integrated with the kernel. The GPL requires
> derived works to be GPL licensed; not "compatible" like BSD, but GPL
> licensed. The GPL also requires that when you ship 2 pieces of software

Common confusion.

The GPL requires the work as a whole must meet the GPL license.

| These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
| identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
| and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
| themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
| sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
| distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
| on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
| this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
| entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

You can do that combining non advertising clause BSD and GPL code. In doing
so you create a work that must now be used according to the terms of the GPL.
Equally you have no effect on the case where one can reasonably be a seperate
work and distributed seperately - which is what most legal systems enforce
anyway.

The kernel contains large amounts of code that has come legally from BSD
licensed sources and is now part of the kernel and thus must be treated in
GPL manner.


I've not looked in detail at the CDDL itself but there are many problems with
BSD like licenses (such as the lack of patent grant guarantees) and I would
suggest discussing the matter with US lawyers or the FSF