Regarding Kubernetes and the Apache license, Apache license 2.0 has to be one of the most business friendly licenses around? It's widely used and understood, no requirement to open source changes, automatic patent license for any patents the software uses included. If the corporate lawyer says no to that, what do they say yes to?
> Apache license 2.0 has to be one of the most business friendly licenses around?
Yes, in my experience it is.
Permissive licenses like Apache, MIT, and BSD are easiest for the corporate lawyers to approve but also easy for the project owner to relicense. Relicencing Monitor isn't measuring how easy it is for companies to use the software; risk is solely measuring how easy it is to relicense the software.
Copyleft licenses are lower risk than permissive licenses in this specific context as they are viral. A CLA or a very small number of contributors can negate that, as happened with Emby [1].
SourceGraph is probably the best example here (I need to add them still). They switched off Apache 2 and prompted this [2] helpful blog post.
