'"In the era of the open source rug pull, the role of open source foundations is more important than ever," argues the co-founder of the developer-focused industry analyst firm RedMonk: The "rug pull" here refers to companies that have used open source as a distribution mechanism, building a community and user base, before changing the license to be restricted, rather than truly open source. "This is capitalism, yo. We've got shareholders to satisfy. It's time to relicense that software, move to a Business Source license." [...] Where open source used to be a sustainable commitment, today too often it feels like a short term tactic. Commercial open source isn't what it used to be. Which means that open source foundations, which provide ongoing governance and intellectual property management for open source projects, are in an interesting position, in some cases becoming more adversarial than they historically have been with vendors.... [T]he Apache Software Foundation (ASF) has done a great job of fostering sustainable, commercial, open source for decades now, most notably in the data infrastructure space — think Hadoop, Spark, Kafka, Flink etc. ["[C]ommercial open source would almost certainly never have achieved critical mass and continued success without foundations in the mix," the article notes later. "The ASF was founded in 1999, and underpinned the adoption of open source middleware in the enterprise..."] One premise behind the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) is that user organisations can within reason trust it to stand behind the projects it incubates and manages. While not an explicit commitment, adopters generally, and enterprises specifically, have seen the CNCF imprimatur as one that they can rely on. In the era of the open source rug pull this kind of promise becomes even more important.... Sid Sijbrandij, CEO of GitLab has argued that open source companies should commit to an Open Charter as a mechanism to protect users from open source rug pulls. "Open source software isn't useful if people can't rely on the project remaining open source. Adopting Open Charter offers open source users predictability amidst the growing licensing switch trend." With a CNCF project, though, the need for this kind of charter becomes less important, because the code is by design not single source, but has a diverse set of contributors. Which is to say that open source foundations can make rug pulls a lot less likely than adoption of open source technology built by a single company. Relying on benevolent dictators is generally pretty risky. And recently the benevolent dictators have seemed... less benevolent. In conclusion, "Open Source Foundations Considered Helpful," according to the post's title. It does argue that "Any company is within its rights to relicense its software, but it can certainly be problematic from a community and project health perspective. "Which is exactly why open source foundations are more important than ever."' -- source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/09/21/0530234 Cheers, Peter