It's perhaps a moot point. Canonical have been distributing OpenZFS binaries for going on two years even though the FSF and the SFLC believe them to be in violation of the GPL.<p>Angry blog posts doesn't cut it. The nature of law and precedent is that unless the FSF or SFLC sue Canonical Ltd. soonish for their distribution of OpenZFS Linux modules, their assertion that the GPL doesn't generally apply to kernel modules will become legal precedent by default.<p>Now, I know the SFLC say that litigation is a last resort. But, it's been 18 months since the last Frank Exchange of Views happened over ZFS and the mutual incompatibility of the GPL and CDDL, and no observable legal movement by either side has happened.<p>Does that mean the FSF/SLFC are frightened that Canonical Ltd.s' legal interpretation would prevail should it ever come to court, or is there another reason the self-professed guardians of software freedom are allowing Canonical to, according to them, wilfully violate the terms of the GPL?