On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote: > > On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 14:26 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote: > > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 19:51:23 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 18:20 +0200, Timo Haas wrote: > > > > > do you plan to support zfs as root filesystem in the installer? > > > > > > > > ZFS binaries are not distributable due to the licence conflict, so this > > > > is unlikely to happen. > > > > > > If the Debian Installer were instead to ship with, or to download at > > > runtime, the ZFS on Linux source code, would that be acceptable from a > > > licensing standpoint? > > > > I imagine this would be acceptable (though not in the default > > installer, which only uses and installs packages from main). > > Good point. Potential avenues: > > 1. Move ZFS *source* into "main". Would this be possible without > compromising Debian's "obviously prudent" arrangement?[1] Should I CC > debian-legal?
This will not happen. > 2. Add ZFS to a Debian Installer that is not the *default* Debian > Installer. Does Debian distribute such an installer, to which the > facility to compile and run ZFS could be added? Yes, there is already an (officially unofficial) installer that includes non-free firmware. Ben. > Thanks :) > > (Please CC me, as I am still not subscribed to the mailing list.) > > [1] https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.html -- Ben Hutchings The program is absolutely right; therefore, the computer must be wrong.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
