> Why not? He's spouting a bunch of ridiculous bullshit about licensing without bothering to ask or cite the opinion of people who are experts in licensing and

> Why not? He's spouting a bunch of ridiculous bullshit about licensing without bothering to ask or cite the opinion of people who are experts in licensing and ethical questions and business questions, eg: the FSF, the OSI licensing list, the FSFE Legal Network, and all so he can make money. Looks pretty nefarious to me. This is quite the spicy comment -- I'm not a licensing expert (note that there was a licensing specialist involved) so I can't speak to OCV's interpretation of licenses, but which idea is the ridiculous bullshit? The PBC charter? The idea that preventing changing license being good? Do you think OCV is making deals that exploit maintainers? This isn't a particularly new business model, so I figure it's not there -- people like/dislike open core, but I don't think people go as far as to call it nefarious. Is the primary concern that the other organizations weren't contacted? > and all so he can make money. Looks pretty nefarious to me. Is the idea here that he'll make money somehow from people choosing to start public benefit corporations? Or from a lot of maintainers choosing to take his investment? This does not seem like a "nefarious" (generally defined as "extremely wicked") thing -- what should it look like to be not nefarious?