&gt; The developers&#x27; opinions don&#x27;t matter<p>I don&#x27;t see how that&#x27;s supposed to make sense.  The developers&#x2F;their employers retain copyright to their contributions—even those who signed the contributor agreement.  (And it&#x27;s dead, by the way.  Nobody new is signing that agreement, and there&#x27;s a backlog containing years of changes where the agreement doesn&#x27;t apply.)  So in a world where Oracle is making no indication of changing those terms, the developers&#x27; opinions <i>do</i> matter.<p>And I&#x27;m very specifically not just talking about the ZFS people here.  This isn&#x27;t &quot;the ZFS license&quot;; it&#x27;s the CDDL.  There&#x27;s other software released under the CDDL.<p>&gt; No, that&#x27;s bullshit. CDDL (which is just the MPL) is a file-based copyleft because that&#x27;s what license fitted their requirements. It&#x27;s not their fault that people have a completely fucked up interpretation of &quot;derivative work&quot; that includes any combination of two completely separately developed works.<p>Again, this is completely incoherent to me.  I recognize the words you&#x27;re using, and I see that they&#x27;re arranged in valid sentence structure, but I have no idea what point is supposed to lie in it or what it has to do with what I wrote.<p>And as I wrote to you before, the CDDL is not &quot;just the MPL&quot;.  Sun didn&#x27;t just rename it and appoint themselves as license stewards when they forked the MPL.  They made significant changes.  They are not the same license.