161–164 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linux foundation was never about Linux or open source. quite the contrary. the foundation started as a way for companies to band Against gpl. and they won the day Linus have up and allowed tainted kernel be the default and every device distributor moved their proprietary code to modules and rejoiced. their focus then was on gpl3 fud because google et al have much more money than modem vendors.
Bingo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think that the developer can demand a withdrawal of their contribution I don't. And neither do you, judging from your last sentence: > So, retracting the contribution may not be an option. So what did you mean by the first one?
The second statement was specifically about when the DCO is in effect. The first one is about when it isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why I (A/L)GPL https://web.archive.org/web/20120620103603/http://zedshaw.co... > I want people to appreciate the work I’ve done and the value of what I’ve made. > Not pass on by waving “sucker” as they drive their fancy cars.
This is the correct approach - double license, if you're non-commercial then you'll get GPL/AGPL/etc. and if you're a company and want to use it to make money this way or another then pay up. A fair approach that provides a way of supporting the people making it and further development.