> I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licen

> I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licensing models. It's definitely possible to take advantage of volunteerism, but in this case I don't see the real issue. The project remains just as open as it ever was, even upon licence change. It can be forked, and the project might change name, but that's all. It's not the nicest outcome, but it's the same as if a sole owner just decides to stop working on a project. The only thing to do is fork and move on.