I still think this sentence here is not quite precise enough:
> All of the most important software of our lifetime is going through this relicensing effort as the creators attempt to capture the value of what it enables.
To me this sounds like the relicensing is done so that a few programmers finally can get paid for their hard labor while maintaining critical software we're all using. What's actually happening here is that some creators have convinced a few investors that they'll be able to give a huge return on invest by building up a sales department around the product. And now the realize that they're not able to accomplishing that with their original license.
It's a perfectly acceptable business strategy, but it's not necessarily the only way of running an open source project.
I'm still hoping that we (the open source community) can find even better ways of ensuring high-quality software remain open source without being so dependent on current mindset of investors.
> All of the most important software of our lifetime is going through this relicensing effort as the creators attempt to capture the value of what it enables.
To me this sounds like the relicensing is done so that a few programmers finally can get paid for their hard labor while maintaining critical software we're all using. What's actually happening here is that some creators have convinced a few investors that they'll be able to give a huge return on invest by building up a sales department around the product. And now the realize that they're not able to accomplishing that with their original license.
It's a perfectly acceptable business strategy, but it's not necessarily the only way of running an open source project.
I'm still hoping that we (the open source community) can find even better ways of ensuring high-quality software remain open source without being so dependent on current mindset of investors.