I read the article as &quot;Despite the SF Conservancy grasping for any money at all to merely keep the lights on, we&#x27;re going to waste time pursuing a licensing issue which boils down to &quot;distribute the binary, not okay; distribute the source + tell user to &#x27;make&#x27;, okay&quot;. The essence of these two positions is pretty subtle, and not something that I think a running-on-fumes organisation should be pursuing.<p>I started donating to them last month; this article makes me wonder if I should retract that. What Canonical is doing isn&#x27;t really violating the spirit of the distribution of ZFS - fundamentally, what is the difference between &#x27;binary&#x27; and &#x27;source + make&#x27; in this context? It&#x27;s still intended to be shared. The article is a legal opinion, it took a fair amount of time to write, and talks about a lot of communication with other parties.