> OpenZFS is free and open source but that license has been determined to NOT be GPL compatible by some lawyers.

Oh? And let me tell you there is more than a boat load of lawyers who disagree.

See the links on page you linked to (!): http://www.networkworld.com/article/2301697/smb/encouraging-...

> There is a bunch of explanations and legal opinions here.

Did you read the text of that page or any of the linked articles? The OpenZFS position is clear: "However, there is nothing in either license that prevents distributing it in the form of a binary module or in the form of source code."

I'd say the main problem with the whole Oracle/ZFS situation: even if merging it is legally sound beyond a doubt, Oracle has the resources (and probably willingness) to make the lives of everyone involved absolutely miserable in the meantime and create legal pains for years and years over this until it gets finally confirmed in court.

I guess that alone could be enough to come to the conclusion that it is not worth the trouble.

The Oracle fears seems overblown to me. If ZFS is shipped with Linux, I believe it would be the GPL that is violated. So Oracle would have no right to sue beyond being one of the many Linux contributors.

Linux had ~5 years to try and add ZFS before it was bought by Oracle, and did not do so. As much as Oracle is often the villain, I don't think they're what the Linux team fears here.

Having lived through the SCO debacle, this right here is my main concern.