>If you're asking why OpenZFS is not hosted kernel.org
No im asking why Linus thinks its acceptable to distribute proprietary Firmware, but needs a personal letter from Lord Elison and ZFS needs to be GPL'd....otherwise just don't use it.
>I just don't see how you can characterize it as zealtory any more so than FreeBSD wanting to remove all GPL'd software from base
That is because you can close and still distribute BSD licensed Software, but not when it contains GPL'd Software, thats why you dont want it in the Base-System, no one has something against GPL there, but FreeBSD wants to distribute a complete Operating-system under the BSD (or compatible like Apache/MIT etc) License.
What matters is if the upstream Linux community is comfortable enough with the license to allow it upstream, which is why I said "considered".
> No im asking why Linus thinks its acceptable to distribute proprietary Firmware, but needs a personal letter from Lord Elison and ZFS needs to be GPL'd....otherwise just don't use it.
There's a big difference between these two things. The first is redistributing proprietary firmware in a completely separate repository from the Linux source code. All firmware included in the linux-firmware repository is explicitly allowed to be redistributed [1], which is why they do not have fears about distributing those binary files.
I'll quote the readme: "If your commit adds new firmware, it must update the WHENCE file to clearly state the license under which the firmware is available, and that it is redistributable."
The second is introducing CDDL licensed code into a GPLv2 project, where that project considers the CDDL license to be incompatible, along with worries (however unfounded) about a notoriously litigious company.
> That is because you can close and still distribute BSD licensed Software, but not when it contains GPL'd Software, thats why you dont want it in the Base-System, no one has something against GPL there, but FreeBSD wants to distribute a complete Operating-system under the BSD License.
Yes the FreeBSD community does not want GPL code in the base system as it prevents them from from distributing a 100% permissively licensed system, and it's understandable why that is a goal. But how is that meaningfully different than the Linux community not wanting code with a license they feel is incompatible with their goals?
Again NO one wants ZFS being in the mainline kernel, but being openly hostile against it, but accept closed Firmware (because they have to...who is the leech now?) is not completely honest.
I've already said that the OpenZFS community is not trying to upstream it, why do you keep thinking that I'm suggesting otherwise?
You continue to conflate support for out of tree kernel modules as being similar to having a separate repository for firmware when they aren't the same thing at all. The Linux developers are not accepting firmware into the kernel at all, so there is no contradiction. The firmware is kept separate, just like OpenZFS is kept as a separate project from Linux. In both instances the user can choose to install an out of tree module such as OpenZFS as well as choose to install firmware on their system.
Furthermore it is not the Linux kernel developers that are packaging and shipping the firmware, it is the various Linux distributions who do that (or not in the case of FSF-approved distributions).
Well NO its not, that's pure FUD from the FSF:
https://zonena.me/2019/01/the-cddl-is-not-incompatible-with-...
>If you're asking why OpenZFS is not hosted kernel.org
No im asking why Linus thinks its acceptable to distribute proprietary Firmware, but needs a personal letter from Lord Elison and ZFS needs to be GPL'd....otherwise just don't use it.
>I just don't see how you can characterize it as zealtory any more so than FreeBSD wanting to remove all GPL'd software from base
That is because you can close and still distribute BSD licensed Software, but not when it contains GPL'd Software, thats why you dont want it in the Base-System, no one has something against GPL there, but FreeBSD wants to distribute a complete Operating-system under the BSD (or compatible like Apache/MIT etc) License.