> You can't reason with corporations > Those people that purposefully refuse to share knowledge so that they can monetize it For both cases, again that's exac

> You can't reason with corporations > Those people that purposefully refuse to share knowledge so that they can monetize it For both cases, again that's exactly what GPL is for. > As far as I'm aware, re-licensing would require asking every single contributor for their consent First, you can start contributing all new code under GPLv3 while keeping a copy of the Apache-2.0 license in the repo and a notice that inform users that large part of the codebase was contributed under Apache-2. According to https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 redistribution paragraph and https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Secondly, you can also ask the few major contributors if they accept switching to GPL. Those who contributed tiny changes e.g. 1-line bugfixes in the past do not have enough contribution material to have a legally standing copyright claim.