IANAL and would love to be corrected, but the chart in this article may confuse many. Permissive licenses cannot be relicensed any easier than non-permissive l

IANAL and would love to be corrected, but the chart in this article may confuse many. Permissive licenses cannot be relicensed any easier than non-permissive licenses. Permissive licenses can be incorporated into larger works with minimal consequences, whereas with AGPL, the consequence is that the rest of the software must be AGPL. Arguably incorporating permissive licensed code into a closed source work is a form of open core, which is what this site is advocating for! Only the copyright holder can relicense the software. A CLA is often used to assign the copyright of any contribution to the company operating the open source project. This ensures the company can relicense the project, regardless of the current license of the code. A DCO is an extra acknowledgement by the developer about their contribution, but does not change the copyright assignment, and thus has no effect on relicensing. Interestingly, there is a CLA that can be used to restrict the ability to relicense a contribution only to other specific open source licenses: http://www.harmonyagreements.org/docs/ha-cla-i.html http://www.harmonyagreements.org/docs/ha-cla-i.html