The legal structures of free software projects go through phases of popularity reminiscent of fashion trends. The early days of free software were decentralized and individualistic, partially inspired by the "free culture" movements of the '60s. Over time, centralization and incorporated non-profit organizations grew popular, parallel with a period of time where FLOSS was struggling for recognition as a viable alternative to proprietary solutions. As FLOSS crested that wave, and won the recognition of the business world, people began to recognize an over-proliferation of special-purpose foundations, and the conservancies (foundations that host multiple independent projects) came to the fore. In the past year we've seen a movement back toward decentralized individualism, questioning the need of any formal legal structures. The fact of the matter is that free software and international law work just fine for a whole gamut of legal structures, from the lone individual hacker to the largest of incorporated entities. It's a free choice for each project. The important thing is for every project to think through their legal strategy. Not just the "What?" (-license? -contribution policy? -legal documentation?) but "Why?" (-pick option X over option Y? -are we doing this? -do we care?) and "How?" (-can we make this work for us? -will this affect our users and developers?).