This is nonsense, even by your argument. Sun is a copyright holder on parts of Linux, and they would need to change their license on those parts to add your proposed "CDDL exception". It would be a lot easier for them and everyone else if they modified the CDDL itself, of course. They've chosen to do neither, and instead blame those dumb Linux folks who went back and time and set up a licensing system (GPLv2 with widely distributed copyright ownership) that is incompatible with the CDDL, and could not possibly be made compatible with the CDDL, before the CDDL was even written! We'd love for them to use DTrace, it's those Linux idiot's lack of foresight that's the problem!
Sorry for getting testy, but this exact same argument -- with the exact same arguments from Sun apologists, all of which serve to confuse the issue despite being utterly without merit -- keeps playing out over and over and it is boring. I'm sure you believe what you're saying, but you're working from a flawed assumption, which is that "Linux developers" are some sort of unified team comparable to your old Solaris group. "Linux developers" are a wildly diverse lot, often competing with each other and with Linux itself (cf. SCO, MS, Sun, ...), and are held together not by a shared vision but by the very licensing regime that you're saying should be adjusted to match Sun's weird licensing ideas.