Any versions of Linux out there that resemble OS X?

[Nothinman]

I suppose changing the license for libc is no small deal.
Just because Nexenta has a problem, you can't expect Sun takes all the trouble re-licensing libc for them. Keep in mind Nexenta at least hasn't violated CDDL, and Sun itself does nothing like what Nexenta is doing.

OpenSolaris comes with no GPL'd applications? Even if that's true now, I can't imagine how it would stay true for very long.

Sun has never closed the door to refine CDDL or even dual-license OpenSolaris.
They have joined the discussion of GPL v3, even said consider dual-licensing OpenSolaris under GPL v3 if it removes certain restrictions in v2.

On ther other hand, it looks like Linux will not adopt GPL v3, but it's too early to speculate.

Well the license that the kernel is under is irrelevant AFAIK, it doesn't link against anything on the system so I would assume that you wouldn't have any problems running conflicting licensed software under the GPL'd kernel. The fact that Linus doesn't like the GPLv3 may hurt it's adoption in some areas, but there's a lot of products out there that say "GPLv2 or any later revision" in their license files so they can be taken under GPLv3 as soon as it's released.

Indeed. However if FSF doesn't take Nexenta to court, probably nobody will (but who knows), especially when Eben, the General Counsel of FSF, sees it as a non-issue.

I don't know, the dpkg maintainers were pretty adamant that they didn't want Nexenta using their software illegally. But it's a lot easier to say things via email than it is to file a lawsuit and follow through.

The goal is Free and Choice, isn't it.

Yes, but the Free part doesn't exclude following the terms of the license.

Nexenta came out from nowhere, by the time it's announced they already ported dpkg to Sun libc and created their own gnu/solaris distribution, needless to say many people were shocked.

Nexenta took the risk, why they felt comfortable taking that risk I don't know.

And the way they went about it is probably part of the problem. The announced their product on debian-devel like it was the second coming and when told that their might be licensing issues they just said "nuh-uh" and seemed to ignore them. No one will deny that a lot of the people in the Debian community are confrontational and highly opinionated and I think debian-legal is second only to OpenBSD in licensing zealotry, but so far it's served them well.