Re: @WolfFan - just downloaded
"Re-read GPL, it is intended to protect end-users like you or me unlike Microsoft license which gives them right to disable your copy of software whenever they feel it."
not entirely... the GPL also dictates how the software must be distributed, and restricts "incompatible" licensing with derived works. In the case of GPLv3 they go MANY steps further in preventing ANY 'closed source' component, require patent licensing, etc.. Fortunately Linux itself is still GPLv2.
Personally, I'd like to write a utility to "open source" a BLOB or library by converting it into assembly language and/or JUST DATA, to work around this limitation (i.e. it's now compilable 'source'), and THEN let end-users decide whether or not they want to run something like that. Most likely they won't care.
Keep in mind that as long as the GPL code can be modified, re-compiled, re-linked, etc. and then still work, it shouldn't be an issue with the GPL, for that was its intent. If it happens to link in a binary compiled object or library, or separate source code for a non-GPL-compatible licensed library, and that object/library has NOTHING to do with the GPL-covered code (say "ZFS"), then the GPL shouldn't apply to "that library". My guess is THIS is how Canonical sees it, despite the cries from the "force everything to be compatible with the GPL because it was shipped WITH Linux" crowd.