I read the article as "Despite the SF Conservancy grasping for any money at all to merely keep the lights on, we're going to waste time pursuing a licensing issue which boils down to "distribute the binary, not okay; distribute the source + tell user to 'make', okay". The essence of these two positions is pretty subtle, and not something that I think a running-on-fumes organisation should be pursuing.
I started donating to them last month; this article makes me wonder if I should retract that. What Canonical is doing isn't really violating the spirit of the distribution of ZFS - fundamentally, what is the difference between 'binary' and 'source + make' in this context? It's still intended to be shared. The article is a legal opinion, it took a fair amount of time to write, and talks about a lot of communication with other parties.
I started donating to them last month; this article makes me wonder if I should retract that. What Canonical is doing isn't really violating the spirit of the distribution of ZFS - fundamentally, what is the difference between 'binary' and 'source + make' in this context? It's still intended to be shared. The article is a legal opinion, it took a fair amount of time to write, and talks about a lot of communication with other parties.