> "distribute the binary, not okay; distribute the source + tell user to 'make', okay"
That's literally what the GPL says. Look, I'm not a GPL zealot. The only thing even vaguely worth releasing, I've released 2-clause BSD.
But we can't just pick which bits of a license we feel good about and ignore the bits we don't - that doesn't exactly make a strong case for potential GPL violators to give a shit about copyright.
It's crappy behaviour from Canonical. I think there's another strategic motive here, they know they're stretching things a lot here but perhaps they see this as a catalyst to finally see some movement on ZFS licensing by various parties (or maybe they're acting on VMWare's behalf by sucking energy away from SC's VMWare case)
That's literally what the GPL says. Look, I'm not a GPL zealot. The only thing even vaguely worth releasing, I've released 2-clause BSD.
But we can't just pick which bits of a license we feel good about and ignore the bits we don't - that doesn't exactly make a strong case for potential GPL violators to give a shit about copyright.
It's crappy behaviour from Canonical. I think there's another strategic motive here, they know they're stretching things a lot here but perhaps they see this as a catalyst to finally see some movement on ZFS licensing by various parties (or maybe they're acting on VMWare's behalf by sucking energy away from SC's VMWare case)