On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:29 AM Brian Behlendorf <br...@behlendorf.com> wrote: > However, it also stipulates a 3:1 matching ($3 for every $1 spent, up to > $8M of the total fund) when that software is exclusively GPLv3 licensed. > > I'd love to understand the arguments that led to the conclusion that GPLv3 > licensed works represent a greater public good here and thus justify more > subsidy than others.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing! Do you know if it has any sort of clause that prevents a CLA, or requires diversity of the copyright holders? To answer your question, I think it's pretty obvious: requiring copyleft, it usually ensures (modulo above question) that one entity can't take the work proprietary. Wikipedia is a similar example where the choice of license was chosen to benefit the commons. Thanks, James _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
