> The developers' opinions don't matter I don't see how that's supposed to make sense. The developers/their employers retain copyright to their contributions—

> The developers' opinions don't matter I don't see how that's supposed to make sense. The developers/their employers retain copyright to their contributions—even those who signed the contributor agreement. (And it's dead, by the way. Nobody new is signing that agreement, and there's a backlog containing years of changes where the agreement doesn't apply.) So in a world where Oracle is making no indication of changing those terms, the developers' opinions do matter. And I'm very specifically not just talking about the ZFS people here. This isn't "the ZFS license"; it's the CDDL. There's other software released under the CDDL. > No, that's bullshit. CDDL (which is just the MPL) is a file-based copyleft because that's what license fitted their requirements. It's not their fault that people have a completely fucked up interpretation of "derivative work" that includes any combination of two completely separately developed works. Again, this is completely incoherent to me. I recognize the words you're using, and I see that they'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. And as I wrote to you before, the CDDL is not "just the MPL". Sun didn'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.