> Why are you ignoring my previous comment that contradicts this opinion? Because it doesn't contradict it, it just disagrees with it. Because what actual argu

> Why are you ignoring my previous comment that contradicts this opinion? Because it doesn't contradict it, it just disagrees with it. Because what actual argument did you have that people using an old version of the software can't keep using it? The one about things constantly breaking? On the web, the platform that's famously stable and backward-compatible? Sorry, I just don't find that believable for projects like htmx and Datastar which are very self-contained and use basic features of the web platform, not crazy things like WebSQL for example. > When Redis changed licenses to SSPL/RSAL, users were also free to continue using the BSD-licensed version. Was that not a rug pull? Firstly, there are tons of people on old versions of Redis who didn't even upgrade through all that and weren't even impacted. Secondly, Redis forks sprang up almost immediately, which is exactly what you yourself said was a viable path forward in an earlier comment–someone new could take over maintaining it. That's effectively what happened with Valkey. > My argument was beyond any legal licensing terms. And my argument is that there is no 'beyond' legal licensing terms, the terms are quite clear and you agree to them when you start using the software. In your opinion should it be standard practice for people to weasel their way out of agreed license terms after the fact? > Any public deed builds a brand and reputation, which in turn can lead to financial opportunities. Notice that you're missing quite a lot of steps there, and even then you can only end with 'can lead' to financial opportunities. Why? Because there's no guarantee that anyone will be able to monetize exposure. No serious person would claim that that uncertain outcome constitutes any kind of 'contract'. Anyone who does should be rightly called out. > It's about building meaningful relationships between people in ways that we can all collectivelly build a better future for everyone. Then by your own logic shouldn't everyone contribute to that effort? Why is it that only the one guy who creates the project must bear the burden of maintaining all of it in perpetuity? > Seeing OSS as a plain transaction Isn't that what you are doing by claiming that OSS is about providing software in exchange for exposure? > Yeah, fuck that guy. The guy who didn't even explain what exactly he lost by not being able to use the new paywalled features? The guy who likely was not impacted at all, and was just ranting on his blog because he didn't like someone monetizing their own project? You want us to take that guy seriously? > everyone who disagrees is "piling on". Everyone who disagrees? Yeah. Anyone who provides a coherent argument about exactly what they are missing out on by not being able to afford the paid version? I would take them seriously. I haven't seen anyone like that here.