The Linux Foundation: Not a Friend of Desktop Linux, the GPL, or Openness
Here&#x27;s the full quote by Greg Olson that was supposedly so offensive:<p><pre><code>  The most permissive licenses present little risk and few
  compliance requirements. These licenses include BSD and
  MIT, and others, that have minimal requirements, all the
  way to Apache and the Eclipse Public License, which are
  more elaborate in addressing contributions, patents, and
  indemnification.

  In the middle of the spectrum are the so-called ‘weak
  viral licenses’ which require sharing source code to any
  changes made to the originally licensed code, but not
  sharing of other source code linked or otherwise bound to
  the original open source code in question. The most
  popular and frequently encountered licenses in this
  category are the Mozilla Public License and the Common
  Public Attribution License.

  Restrictive Licenses present the most legal risk and
  complexity for companies that re-distribute or distribute
  software. These licenses are often termed ‘viral’ because
  software combined and distributed with this licensed
  software must be provided in source code format under the
  terms of those licenses. These requirements present
  serious risks to the preservation of proprietary software
  rights. The GNU General Public License is the archetype of
  this category, and is, in fact, the most widely used open
  source license in the world.
</code></pre>
It is beyond me how this analysis, which appears to be as objective as can possibly be, can be taken as an insult at all, let alone lead one to conclude that the &quot; Linux Foundation has no respect for FOSS&quot;.