There is a lesson in these repeated incidents that really needs to be learned by both industry and individual developers - if you intend, when putting the first publicly visible version of a project out to the world, that it might _ever_ be financially self sustaining or profitable, don't start with an OSS licence. Start with BSL, or whatever suits your taste, but don't start with OSS and change your mind after a few years when you realise it's a money pit. They are all money pits, it's inevitable.

How are folks interpreting "include (advanced features) in the NATS server while exploring a BSL license model for future versions" given the statement that "We never considered blanket relicensing of the codebase"? It sounds like grasping at semantics to paint themselves in more positive light. I still very much read this as a server code relicense of a project that they transferred to CNCF.

This is the sad reality of Open Source, in principle it is a great and noble idea, however you quickly find out that most of your "community" is users demanding fixes and features while contributing nothing, and then there's the enterprise, taking your product and making money out of it but giving you nothing in return.

> An Apache 2.0 licensed server version will always remain available and supported.

As someone who uses NATS, this seems fine to me I think. It seems weird to me that they think they have to leave the CNCF to create BSL extensions though. Does anyone have any insight into that?

ugh

undefined