> and the software itself. Often when licenses change, the old versions of the repositories, that are still under the old license are still available. Isn't th

> and the software itself. Often when licenses change, the old versions of the repositories, that are still under the old license are still available. Isn't that the case here as well? Granted, employees of Elastic, might have unknowingly written code that is now under a proprietary license. But code of most other external contributors should still be under the APL2.0, right? > Maybe, but it still doesn't make it right. This wasn't an accident, or the consequence of a company gradually succumbing to attrition. It was deliberately done for the profit motive in an already profitable company, and excused away with gaslighting and misinformation. You are blaming a for-profit company for making supposedly for-profit decisions, which is nothing new. If you could show that their actions where dictated by short term greed (which is mismanagement in a for profit company), then this argument would bite more IMO. A good argument for your critique is also their press release, where they try to explain 'nothing has changed' while in fact the license has. > This is why I chose to criticize them on my blog. Of course its a very annoying situation and IMO you are right in criticize them for causing it.