Am I really reading this correctly, that the plan seems to be "ignore the possible license incompatibility and hope Oracle doesn't sue?"
Because of all ways to fill in the "Hope _____ doesn't sue" plan, "Oracle" must be in the top 5 worst companies to fill in the blank with in the tech industry.
I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the CDDL, however it could be that the license incompatibility is one-way: maybe only the GPL rightsholders have reason to sue.
Unfortunately, Oracle also holds copyright in Linux, so they can sue as a GPL rightsholder.
The real question is whether Oracle could convince a jury. It is hard to imagine what their argument would be. Then again, I would have never imagined that they would use copyright law over APIs to attack Google's use of Java.
No, the plan was, "have the lawyers evaluate the possible license incompatibility, decide that the really isn't one, and release the module." The SFLC is essentially running a FUD campaign here by trying to paint Canonical as being reckless.
I phrased it as a "possible license incompatibility" very carefully. I'm personally ambivalent about whether it is; I know enough to know I don't know. And even those who think they know will generally agree that you don't really know know until it is tested in court.
The real problem here is that Oracle is the sort of company that does "test it in court". Is Canonical really big enough to be able to afford this level of risk? Even if they win I would be surprised if they managed to talk the judge into awarding them lawyer costs from Oracle. There's definitely enough ambiguity here that it wouldn't be a stupid suit. Legally, anyhow.
Because of all ways to fill in the "Hope _____ doesn't sue" plan, "Oracle" must be in the top 5 worst companies to fill in the blank with in the tech industry.