Hmmm... I think it has everything to do with the Tailor bs. Dan Farr's statement(s) in the Amy case pointed out the legal and logical difficulties of proving that a mesh is a derivative (or straight rip-off, as Amy seemed to be). This difficulty is the core of the current problem, IMHO. All the various ways to derive a mesh (morph dial combo in Poser, Tailor, shrink-wrapping of any flavor) are just means to the same end : use existing model data as "guidance data" (or straight raw material) in building a new one, thus using DAZ work to compete with DAZ work. I think it's very likely that the thinking DAZ did, post-Amy, prompted a revison of the EULA. And that EULA is the problem now.