<i>Seriously, I don&#x27;t understand what you&#x27;re arguing here.</i><p>I&#x27;ll try to be a little clearer, but it&#x27;s basically what I started with and ended with (which you actually appear to agree with)<p>1.) SFC says &#x27;in this context, Oracle could make everyone&#x27;s life easier by waving their magic relicensing wand&#x27;<p>2.) I say &#x27;That&#x27;s not much of an argument.&#x27;<p>3.) I say &#x27;lists 73 authors not including the Oracle developers, which appear to be both individuals (gmail accounts, etc) and multiple individual businesses (nexenta, ovh, etc)&#x27;<p>4.) I say &#x27;It really seems like neither could easily relicense, so there is no magic wand.&#x27;<p>In other words, there is no &#x27;magic wand&#x27; because even if Oracle magically did there thing it would not fix the issue that FSC has with Canonical because the actual &#x27;ZFS on Linux&#x27; code would still be licensed as CDDL.  So it&#x27;s &#x27;not much of an argument&#x27; because it would be hard (if even possible) to get every ZoL contributor to relicense, and thus doesn&#x27;t solve the problem.<p><i>To argue that this is somehow of equivalent complexity</i><p>You seem to be getting stuck on some issue of relicensing being equivalent.  From a mathematical point of view, I&#x27;m sure you could assign some probability to both events (with Linux relicensing having a smaller chance), but it seems like for all intents and purposes, it&#x27;s zero (even if Oracle relicensed).  Do two events have to have equivalent complexity in order to be basically irrelevant as FSC argument?  Seems to me like it&#x27;s just FSC finger-pointing as rhetorical trick (and thus my pointing out it&#x27;s lack of merit)