> Exactly, you know the answer, No. It was not a rhetorical device. > you just don't like the implications. I don't know which implications you're talking ab

> Exactly, you know the answer, No. It was not a rhetorical device. > you just don't like the implications. I don't know which implications you're talking about, it was a question without prejudice or load. > People somehow think that a business which started an open source project "deserves" to profit from it. I do not agree. I don't hold a position stating that "TF should stay open, and companies should profit from it while giving it patches if you feel like it". I'm the opposite, and I find the approach to permissive licenses as "Ooo... Free tool to build a new product on and profit" as unethical to begin with. I put anything and everything I put out as A/GPLv3 or GFDL, because I produce that code for myself, on my free time, and I don't have a secret desire for it to be forked and closed down for internet cookie points. If you want to use my tool for any reason (which are not very sophisticated to begin with), comply with GPL, or roll your own. I. Don't. Care. I also pay for tons of things. Docker, cloud storage, programming fonts I use, anything I deem worth the money they're asking for. I also use Vagrant a lot, share my Vagrantfiles (again under GPLv3), and if they begin to charge like Docker, I'll pay for it, if I deem it's worth the money they ask for. However, at the end of the day, I'm a Free Software advocate. I use Free Software to the extent possible, and develop my software as Free Software. Not Open Source software under some permissive license to be grabbed and forked to death.