PostgreSQL wasn't developed by a single company, in fact, it came from Berkeley, with public funding: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/history.html https://ww

PostgreSQL wasn't developed by a single company, in fact, it came from Berkeley, with public funding: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/history.html https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/history.html Even today, it's contributors come from all over the place: https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/ https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/ I agree with the final statements of the article: > Open source-licensed projects with a non-profit home, neutral trademark ownership, and multiple significant contributors are less likely to face pressures to relicense. Projects that are the main revenue generator for a ‘single source’ for-profit company have different dynamics. To "protect" important projects, the more we can find a way to keep them running via a non-profit structure would probably help most of them. This is why I think the Rust Foundation is an important step for that language, and gives me optimism. It's the right approach: basically, become supported by multiple businesses, effectively not putting all your eggs in one basket. I hope the Rust Foundation succeeds and becomes a paradigm more popular than "try to build a business on my open source project" concept.