Yes Arch is another one that treats building from source as a mainstream option. My root question, though, is whether or not that obviates the license issue. I think it does, but I'd like confirmation.

That's the position the Debian project is taking. They're planning to provide a package that builds locally on the users system.[1]

[1] http://blog.halon.org.uk/2016/01/on-zfs-in-debian/

I think so too, but if even providing a script is too far then just provide an easy mechanism to preload kernel modules before the installer runs.

It seems like literally something as simple as defining an extra directory on the installation medium for which all files will be loaded into the kernel at startup. Or allowing the installer to be started from a live environment, so you could download/build sources and load the module and then start installation.

Perhaps it can't be Canonical who actually writes and maintains the script, but it seems like a problem you could hack around fairly easily while maintaining plausible deniability.

I think it does too, but it shifts responsibility/breach from the repo maintainer to the end user.

What it does is move the license issue from Arch to the user[1]. Instead of Arch infringing on the GPL, the user is infringing on the GPL. It's much harder for groups like the SFC to sue a bunch of users than it is to sue an organization, but it doesn't make the licenses compatible.

I feel for the SFC on this issue, but I wonder what they realistically expect the outcome will be. Ubuntu stops distributing ZFS? Ubuntu ships a means to install ZFS from source (which doesn't remove the infringement, just shifts it)? Oracle convinces everybody to change the license? The last seems wildly unlikely, so I just don't quite understand what they are trying to do.

[1] Of course, AUR is a community oriented repository, not part of Arch proper, so there is not really any question of Arch being involved at all. But you get the point...

The user can't infringe on the GPL. Not possible.

Users already have (by the nature of copyright law) and are explicitly in the GPL given the right to do whatever they want with the code, short of distributing it.

Sorry. Yes, of course you are right. They would have to distribute it. It's strange how one can carry incorrect notions in one's head for a long time... Thanks for correcting me!