> If zig were licensed GPL, the zig foundation would be able to sell permissive licenses to companies
That would be against the spirit of GPL, which is ideologically opposed to all proprietary software.
That would be against the spirit of GPL, which is ideologically opposed to all proprietary software.
It's a good way to support a project - companies don't like the GPL but they also want to spend money on support.
I disagree. GPL/Commercial dual licensing is always a game of perverse incentives. Even if you aren't actively crippling the free part of your product you're incentivised to make it difficult enough to work with or otherwise support that companies will be inclined to pay you to do it.
Remember that it's not free it's about lawyer approval.
You could grant them an MIT license, I guess.