Hello Tanguy, thanks for your response, you wrote:
I would expect, and encourage, people to fork the work and maintain it with the same license for all parties, without any such contributor agreement.I would normally agree with such stance. But why would one have the goal to keep Nuitka under GPLv3 for long, and if the main contributors and about everybody else won't have it either?For what I see, the right question would rather be: why would one have the goal to distribute Nuitka under GPL for a while, and then switch to Apache? I mean, honestly, your goal is weird, so seing someone fork it to maintain it under the GPL would seem pretty normal in comparison.
I tried to explain why. To be public. To be Free Software. To not (yet) be forked by people taking it to closed source. To not (yet) be forked by people who don't share my plan, but think and act short term.
Notice the "yet" on that last sentences. I definitely want those things to happen, just not yet.
Releasing and maintaining under GPLv3, I won't be able to allow it later. And releasing and maintaining under "Apache License 2.0" I won't be able to prevent the "yet" things.
With a "sunrise" phase, I can have both. I agree it's rather untypical, but I need not be typical. "To be typical", that's not a goal of mine. :-)
And as I said, I don't want to discuss the merits and likelihood of things to happen. So I am going to leave the discussion at that.
Yours, Kay