&gt; The incompatibility between CDDL and GPL is well-known, and the authors at Sun made it that way deliberately.<p>To clarify, by &quot;authors&quot; do you mean individual developers? Or do you mean Sun&#x2F;Oracle as a corporation.<p>If you mean individuals, how often do you see individual developers working for multinational companies just wing it with a license choice? (If that is what you are implying).  Your comment made it seem as if CDDL was a long and hard personal choice made by each developers, and somehow people here are wiling to discount that hard decision.<p>I worked for 2 big companies and in neither case had a much of a personal choice in picking licenses for the code. As in thinking &quot;hmm, I think this code today will be MIT, maybe tomorrow I&#x27;ll feel like Public Domain&quot;.  It is usually the higher ups &#x2F; company owners &#x2F; legal department that decides what the license is and the company as an entity owns the code.<p>Point being ownership of the code is very concentrated with ZFS, and in this case concentrated in the hands of Oracle + a few outside developers and it is just a file system (albeit a cool one). So that is way of the quickest solution to the impasse is for Oracle to re-license the code.<p>Of course the other fly in the ointment here is that Oracle has some stake in BTRFS -- a competing filesystem. It was project sponsored by them initially and so I think besides being, well, you know Oracle, they could be interested in stiffing adoption of ZFS to avoid competition with their own project.