I know the cultural understanding among developers is that FOSS is "altruistic", but that's often wrong. It's all about incentives. If there's no incentive beh

I know the cultural understanding among developers is that FOSS is "altruistic", but that's often wrong. It's all about incentives. If there's no incentive behind an OSS community working on this project, it'll just burn out a few naive souls, and kill off the project for the rest. Giving the project to a company which has commercial interest in maintaining it and supporting it through commercial licensing could mean a better future for APL2. This aftermath is very typical when a project is "interesting" from commercial perspective, but it's quite "boring" from technical/enthusiast perspective. I'm not saying it's ALWAYS one way or another. But it depends on the APL2 audience. We gotta start seeing FOSS as a tool, not as charity or as some sort of "giving to the world". We're engineers, or at least we should think as engineers. Engineers know no solution is just "best" at everything. Everything has pros and cons, and you need to consider things in context. That also applies to IP management with regards to what's best for a project's continued existence.