Hacker News Reader

Pet this earlier article [1], the OS (currently?) is licensed under a combination of BSD3, MIT and Apache.

So, they are moving from GPL to a more permissive model. Though, sure, they could easily change the terms for the final version..

[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/googles-fuchsia-smar...

I think the issue being with the GPL that they can't sell it directly.

I guess it's driver related. since fuchsia is a micro kernel os it avoids some driver issues when updating the kernel.

Why would they? Google has nothing to gain by going proprietary. And if you think they do, I'd be interested in your reasons for thinking so.

Fuchsia is permissively licensed; it definitely avoids the GPL (whether or not that is a key motivation), but is not “going proprietary”.

Now, it permits proprietary derivstives, but that's a different issue.

I don't think it will go closed source, however I am strongly in the camp prefering GPL licensed code for putting the user first. Toy knowledge Google has not GPLed anything ever, tending to prefer their own open source license.