GPLv2 forbids the additional non-free restrictions added in GPLv3 so they can't be mixed together.
It isn't permitted to use Linux kernel code in GNU projects or vice versa.
GPL is why Linux users don't have a nice mainline ZFS implementation.
This hardly qualifies as freedom.
Conversation
Replying to
While I don't agree with your statement wrt to the licenses, the reason Linux users don't have a mainline ZFS implementation was Sun and is now Oracle. They explicitly want ZFS to be incompatible with Linux.
That is neither the fault of the kernel community nor the GPL.
1
1
Replying to
It is the GPL at fault. GPL is similarly incompatible with MPL 1.0 in the same way for the same reason. It's incompatible with other licenses for similar reasons.
Even if the talking point that Sun chose the license for that reason was true (doubtful), it's still GPL's fault.
Replying to
Sun literally wrote the CDDL to be incompatible with the GPL a decade after Linus chose it for the Kernel. They could've done otherwise...
Oracle could still relicense/dual-license, but they don't want to.
1
Replying to
[citation needed]
Hearing the claim on hacker news from GPL / FSF advocates doesn't make it true.
Even if it is true, it's still the fault of the GPL that it's a restrictive non-free license incompatible with licenses doing patent grants (GPLv2) or MPL 1.0 style file licensing.
1
Show replies