In general, I think it would be most optimal if technical decisions didn't hinge on legal restrictions. GPL makes this less likely because of its absolutionist stance.

It's funny, but you're unintentionally perpetuating what's becoming the new stereotype. Now that the GPL has become mainstream, it's the anti-GPL people who come off as extreme. I'm not saying you're an extremist, but the GPL is not always the root of the problem.

In this case, it's a mutual incompatibility. This is just as much about the CDDL's restrictions as it is the GPL. The CDDL was created after the GPL, and it was an intended incompatibility. The GPL could have been the MIT license and the CDDL might have included a "cannot be distributed with MIT-licensed software" clause.

The point is that now that nobody has an interest in keeping ZFS out of Linux, it's time to relicense! That's all there is to it.

What about Turing and all the other guys that have done and still do great work? Should we end their careers because some of their work is secret? That's just un-australian.

Prove you're a Turing, and there's no problem.

Of course, you can't, which is why you're still following me months later posting impotent comments. I'm staggered how deep this bit, I really must have hit a nerve.

Take back your comment - you're wrong - just because someones work was secret, that doesn't mean their career should be ended.