> "Linux will ignore the best implementation of a thing because we/they don't like the license."
> That's a choice, not a law of the universe. It's perhaps also a canonical example of spite-induced nose cutting
It isn't because they don't like the license. The licenses of linux and zfs are incompatible, so zfs is out of tree and that leads to technical problems. No, it isn't a law of the universe, but it is the law of the United States at least, and probably many other countries as well.
> To be fair, they kind of did that to themselves with the GPL
Well at this point, even if they wanted to change the license of Linux, they probably couldn't. Every contributor would have to agree to it, which is unlikely to happen, even if you ignore the logistics of asking everyone.
> That's a choice, not a law of the universe. It's perhaps also a canonical example of spite-induced nose cutting
It isn't because they don't like the license. The licenses of linux and zfs are incompatible, so zfs is out of tree and that leads to technical problems. No, it isn't a law of the universe, but it is the law of the United States at least, and probably many other countries as well.