[eluusive]

The NATS project originally came out of CloudFoundry, and gnatsd later out of Apcera. I worked for Apcera while we were maintaining gnatsd. Docker and Kubernetes basically put that company out of business -- the founder went and started Synadia which was focused on NATS instead of container orchestration.

I think nats is a great technology for a number of use cases. It's unfortunate that it's so hard to find the resources to support and maintain open source software while paying developer salaries.

Derek put a ton of work, effort, and money into NATS.

It's a sad story to me; I don't know what the answer is to these sorts of "tragedy of the commons" type issues are.

[tylertreat]

I worked (briefly) at Apcera as well and on the NATS team as a core contributor on the project. I sympathize because it is really difficult to build a viable business around OSS. But the move to contribute it to CNCF, which put it on a stage that it simply never would have had without the foundation, and now trying to withdraw it because it is still a fledgling project is just not a good look.

The irony is how would this have played out if it _did_ turn into a thriving project under CNCF? In that scenario, the NATS brand would have substantially more value and equity. That would have made a relicensing even more impactful, made it even more difficult to claw back from CNCF, and even more controversial. Because NATS remains relatively niche, I suspect the thinking is that not enough people will really care for it to matter, but if that's the case, why not just make a proprietary fork under a new name?

I don't know how this situation doesn't result in a fork. Either the BSL will be a fork or the OSS will be a fork. But because nearly all of the contributors are Synadia employees, I don't know what this will mean for the longevity of the project.