Licenses, copyrights and trademarks have value only when there is actual change of someone getting sued. Who among the many Linux kernel copyright holders would

Licenses, copyrights and trademarks have value only when there is actual change of someone getting sued. Who among the many Linux kernel copyright holders would oppose having ZFS module? Who would be willing to sue Canonical? Will Oracle object? Eben Moglen from Software Freedom Law Center thinks its OK as long as the source is distributed and no proprietary changes is made. https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-... >In this specific sense, then, the conduct which falls outside the words of GPLv2 falls within the "equity of the license," or its "spirit." As all Western legal systems have known since Aristotle, literal interpretation of any legal material will sometimes produce unintended unjust results, which can and should be corrected by the invocation of "equity." This present issue is evidently an example in which the tension between literal and equitable interpretation is raised, and it is the consensus of the kernel copyright holders' intention which determines which mode of interpretation is to be employed. Linus is one central figure among kernel copyright holders. When he has stated his interpretation and it seems that most other maintainers are not objecting either, kernel copyright holders' intention seems to be closer to the "equity of the license".