[executesorder66]

> Game dev at the top tiers is an arms race. Being able to do proprietary things is attractive to big players.

Yeah, so I don't see how helping out the big players and not everyone else is a good thing.

>Multiple projects have gone closed-source from open source. Assurances are a nice thing to have (but certainly no guarantee).

Yeah but the open source ones ARE guaranteed. Even if they later become closed source, the code up till that point will remain open source forever. So it is guaranteed whereas "some assurances" mean nothing.

[all2]

> Yeah, so I don't see how helping out the big players and not everyone else is a good thing.

If you want your stuff to be private, you have a legal option.

> Yeah but the open source ones ARE guaranteed. Even if they later become closed source, the code up till that point will remain open source forever. So it is guaranteed whereas "some assurances" mean nothing.

I guess? Is that not the case here as well?

[mst]

> Yeah but the open source ones ARE guaranteed. Even if they later become closed source, the code up till that point will remain open source forever.

The changes from the Apache 2.0 license are sufficiently minimal that you can _still_ fork it from that point, you just (a) won't be able to use the trademark (b) won't be able to sell it.

Given the clearly stated goals of the foundation and hence the project, that seems to be providing exactly the guarantees they intend to provide, and while your point about assurances is entirely fair, I think you're underestimating the level of legal guarantees that you do get here.