[abarth]

> Looks like you still cannot contribute without granting copyright ownership to Google

That is not accurate. Fuchsia uses the standard Google CLA:

"You do not surrender ownership of your contribution, and you do not give up any of your rights to use your contribution elsewhere."

https://cla.developers.google.com/about

[brandmeyer]

There's a big difference between licensing code to the world under the terms of Apache 2.0, and licensing code to Google under whatever terms they feel like now or at any time in the future.

[skybrian]

I don't think it's an important difference. If you're doing open source at all, you're losing control over what's done with your code, including allowing it to be used by competitors and "bad guys" however you define that.

See (5) and (6) in the open source definition: no discrimination against persons or groups, and no discrimination against fields of endeavor.

If you're unwilling to relinquish control, no open source license is going to be good enough. At best you might scare some risk-adverse companies away from using it, but there are still going to be a lot of people you dislike who can use your software to nefarious ends.

[dhodell]

Is there? Apache 2.0 includes clauses for patent indemnification and allowing sub-licensing derived work.