&gt; the GPL brigade is getting louder in their intolerance of other licences.<p>I really don&#x27;t see much evidence of this, certainly not from the FSF&#x2F;SFC, who specifically do <i>not</i> discourage use of free licenses that are GPL-compatible, such as the BSD and MIT licenses[0]. The anti-GPL crowd is much more vocal about their distaste for the GPL, especially on forums like HN.<p>The issue at hand is the use of a license which is <i>not</i> compatible with the GPL. No matter which way you slice it, that&#x27;s a massive inconvenience to everyone, and pretty much nobody wins as a result.<p>(As for relicensing, it is literally impossible to change the license of Linux at this point, because the rights are held by thousands of contributors individually (some of whom are dead, and tracking copyright as it passes across estates is a notoriously difficult task[1]). If there&#x27;s ever going to be a reconciliation between ZFS and Linux, it would require Oracle to relicense ZFS under any one of the many GPL-compatible licenses.)<p>[0] They <i>do</i>, incidentally, discourage the use of the terms &quot;BSD license&quot; and &quot;MIT license&quot;, arguing that those are ambiguous and should be deprecated in favor of &quot;3-clause BSD license&quot; and &quot;X11 license&quot;, respectively. But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is about the use of the actual licenses themselves and the terms they represent, not the names that people use to call them.<p>[1] Even figuring out if a given book can be reprinted is prohibitively difficult for publishers, and that&#x27;s with works that only have <i>one single author</i>.