[RattleyCooper]

Oh, I don't care if they do and never said they shouldn't, I just think someone should make a FOS version.

How dare someone want to use something free and open source, that's developed by a vast community of individuals instead of relying on 1 individual (who might disappear at a moment's notice) for every single update and bug fix. Tstst.

See, I can be snarky too

[zamadatix]

> that's developed by a vast community of individuals instead of relying on 1 individual

Being FOSS or licensed doesn't dictate the number of developers so isn't a rebuttal against licensing.

> (who might disappear at a moment's notice)

Nor does it change the ability of people to disappear

> for every single update and bug fix.

Nor are you unable to get a license which allows you source access or rights should they disappear. Most really don't mind clauses about things after their disappearance.

The only thing you seem to be against in your rebuttal is that a license fee be paid. Otherwise you're just wishing for active and vibrant development so far, regardless of licensing.

[Const-me]

> who might disappear at a moment's notice

It's much easier for a corporation to disappear at a moment's notice. "Limited liability" in the LLC is there for a reason.

[pjmlp]

I see, so what?