[DetroitThrow]

>Every OSS project that reaches critical mass seems to believe changing the license to something source-available is the only option.

Far from, these projects are the exceptions not the norm imo. Even the ones that grow past hobbyist torch-passing. Usually the impetus for changing license involves a business who finds themselves in charge of very well-used projects that, despite their popularity, isn't all that lucrative to be the ward of.

So, I think there are better models than using permissive OSS as the license for the first few years of a project and then switching it out from underneath contributors/users.

From a purely business perspective, it seems silly to acquire a customer base who wants _free_ and agree to provide it, then rug pull them - and expect the inertia from the initial goodwill can carry the business for more than a few years. I've seen dozens of software businesses and projects die this way at this point, so I'm not surprised, even if the juice is only temporary it's seems well worth the squeeze for enough of these entities.