VLC re-licensed their project and they had 300 authors.
When people talked about the feasibility of re-license linux to gplv3 (as a thought experiment), people talked about several thousands of authors under the time period of almost 30 years. Several of them are dead.
But the discussion here also lack a significant detail; the target license for which ZFS would switch to. Commenters here on HN has said (unsourced) that the original developers has expressed an opinion that it all would be better if ZFS would be Apache licensed. That way it would be compatible with both GPLv2 and CDDL licensed contributions, and everyone would stop bugging ZFS about it.
When people talked about the feasibility of re-license linux to gplv3 (as a thought experiment), people talked about several thousands of authors under the time period of almost 30 years. Several of them are dead.
But the discussion here also lack a significant detail; the target license for which ZFS would switch to. Commenters here on HN has said (unsourced) that the original developers has expressed an opinion that it all would be better if ZFS would be Apache licensed. That way it would be compatible with both GPLv2 and CDDL licensed contributions, and everyone would stop bugging ZFS about it.