This is so true. Let’s talk about reality. ECC has pioneered Zcash and is the core team for Zcash software. Every successful cryptocurrency has such a core team at the epicenter, who has been the prime driver of technological growth, partnerships, collaboration in software & adoption, etc.
I’m a holder of Algorand, Avalanche & Cardano. I would not want the core teams of Algorand to lose their core devs or team, nor would I want the NY-based makers of Avalanche consensus software to leave, nor IOHK that manages a globally distributed team. I want these teams to drive the path forward for the next 10 years and beyond! Algorand has proprietary code for finality which powers their blockchain trilemma, ALGO holders are more than happy that tech is with Algorand and they see a future in enterprise adoption of the tech, USDC works like butter on ALGO. 
Same goes for Avalanche and Cardano, sometimes the community members make a noise about too much centralization and dependency on the leadership of the core teams, but soon they realize there is no real alternative! So, as long as the core team has inherent interests in the success of the coin, every decision made by the leaders of the core team needs to be respected. Yes, there are serious concerns brought forward by core devs regarding the usage of a custom license. It is good to know the challenges that lie ahead, and I support ECC in moving ahead with the BOSL license up till the next halving and then evaluate the decision. BOSL is a very open license, anyone is free to adopt it as long as they follow the rules of the license!
Since BOSL is limited to Orchard tech, every partner would still be able to integrate ZEC with T-address like they do today for interoperability and then use ZEC per the core benefit of Zcash - shielding ZEC for long-term storage that goes inside Orchard pool - and the tech benefits from every improvement a competitor makes! And since we pay & entrust ECC with maintaining our core zcashd mining node, we can trust them to extend the Orchard license/permission to partners and collaborators they have worked with - Nighthawk, Filecoin, Ethereum, etc.
My experience working with ECC has been fantastic, their engineers have always made time when there was a need to discuss critical matters. Obviously, I want all the outstanding items to be resolved and fixed yesterday, but I respect their prioritization choices & the degree of care taken by ECC devs to their software releases, powering multi-billion-dollar value in money.
What I love about Zcash is that we can have all the discussions out in the open, cry out our agonies, and raise & plant red flags everywhere like it is possible in a democracy. At the end of the day, when all the discussions have concluded, the majority of the community ends up agreeing on an obvious path ahead, even if there are compromises to be made, or worse, losing some community members.
The Monero party has decided to draw the line at MIT Licenses only, they also do not care about being lawfully compliant in any jurisdiction, treating software as pure software that doesn’t live in the real world of the 2020s. It is understandable they would be vocal in any deviation from their core beliefs, be it custom licensing to benefit ZEC only or block rewards funding legal compliance. Zcash holders on the other hand have been open to change - be it block rewards upgrades, modifying block rewards/dev fund, and larger items like the move to PoS. The announcement of BOSL license for Orchard was made a while back, and it is starting to look a bit contentious as it is brought up again & again, just before NU5 activation. I believe the majority of the Zcash holders have digested the news long ago about the choice of BOSL license.