[TheNewsIsHere]

I consider it a feature that some FOSS licenses are effectively bound to their licensed code forever but don’t necessarily prohibit forking and relicensing in future.

I do think moving the goalposts or being dishonest about your intentions are wrong.

What I’d like to see when this happens is honesty about relicensing with a view toward profit (or whatever you’re after), and not attempting to scrub your more liberally licensed code from the face of the planet.

I’m not asserting that everyone does this, but it’s certainly been done many times.

If you think you might one day make money on it, just say that up front and don’t be greedy when you finally do.

[lamontcg]

> I do think moving the goalposts or being dishonest about your intentions are wrong.

> If you think you might one day make money on it, just say that up front and don’t be greedy when you finally do.

You're implicitly assuming that they're doing a deliberate bait and switch instead of just realizing after the fact that they screwed up.

There seems to be an open source fundamental attribution error here where someone changing their mind is evidence that they plotted all along to do evil.

It is also a failure to apply Hanlon's Razor--the original choice to open source license probably was ignorant/naive/stupid and not done with malice in mind.

[TheNewsIsHere]

My comment doesn’t apply to every situation.

There are certainly cases where there has been an intentional (or effective) bait and switch, but I’m not laboring under the assumption that this is always the case.

I’m not applying any assumption of malice to initial licensing decisions.

The idea I was communicating was that in some cases developers _do_ have intentions that are incompatible with FOSS licenses from the start. Not that this is always the case.