←back to thread

Rug pulls, forks, and open-source feudalism

(lwn.net)
275 points pabs3 | 1 comments | 06 Sep 25 05:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
OgsyedIE ◴[06 Sep 25 09:49 UTC] No.45147936[source]▶
I believe there should be a broader family of terms besides rug pull for when the intentions of vendors and developers change over time to become extractive and negative. No, enshittification is not the right word.
replies(1): >>45148654 #
01HNNWZ0MV43FF ◴[06 Sep 25 12:22 UTC] No.45148654[source]▶
"bait and switch"

The FOSS license is the bait, and the CLA is evidence that they had ill intent from the start

replies(1): >>45149374 #
1. sparkie ◴[06 Sep 25 14:07 UTC] No.45149374[source]▶
It's not ill intent. The CLA clearly states what the intent is. It says "You give the company permission to relicense your work". The intent is there from the beginning - they want to be able to monetize the work. If you dislike such intent, then you wouldn't sign the CLA.

The concern is if they stop dual-licensing, and future releases don't come under a free license, but they only work on their proprietary relicensed version. You have the option to fork, under the same free license that it was originally under - you just won't get further updates from the company involved. I don't see the problem here: You aren't entitled to those updates just because you made some contributions.