> Wasn’t the whole point of the GPL that there could never be a rug-pull? This single statement seems to show a few separate misunderstandings. We'll start wit

> Wasn’t the whole point of the GPL that there could never be a rug-pull? This single statement seems to show a few separate misunderstandings. We'll start with the point of GPL: users having enduring and unalienable rights to run, inspect, change and share the code running on their computer. But you cannot remove somebody's existing right to code under MIT/etc. You make it closed source, I still have yesterday's branch and every right to it I had then. You can change the license for the project (by CLA or getting every contributors permission, or excising contributions) and that's true even in [A]GPL projects. Again, this only affects code going forward. Everyone who had the code, still has all their rights to it. So moving to GPL fixes very little with rug-pulls. It will stop another developer making closed source versions of your code. They don't have to contribute their changes upstream (only to their users). And GPL scares closed-source developers; AGPL terrifies them. They have their purposes but you have to be real with how they're going to be —rightly or wrongly— interpreted. MIT's prevalence is reciprocal convenience. Any project owner can decide to be arseholes and change their licenses but the community just routes around. Valkey is a great recent example of that. Never touching Redis again.