But the point is that they acknowledge that they forked Kibana and why. It’s no different than if someone forks Apache code to form a proprietary software company. The permissive license contributed to the success of many companies. They further acknowledge that Apache based Grafana can be forked too, but they’re betting on themselves to continue to succeed long term by focusing on good software, branding and community. The GP’s point seemed to indicate that “no one” acknowledged the Kibana origins when in fact Grafana themselves have.
You're right - I hadn't seen that in the Q&A, so I appreciate you pointing it out.
Listen, at the end of the day, it's their legal right to choose the licensing strategy that they think is right for their business, shareholders, employees, customers, peace of mind, etc. I feel like asking if it's hypocritical is a bit of a straw man, though. It's not hypocritical per se - I just feel that it's a bit disingenuous to say "hey, we have this large, successful business to protect" without also openly acknowledging that it may never have existed without the tailwinds of an era where the open source community embraced permissive licenses. Simply dismissing the question as "hypothetical" is what I take issue with.
Also, I see your shiny, new account and feel it's likely that you are really just here to defend Grafana. I get it. I don't think this change is a bad idea, necessarily. I just want some of these licensing shenanigans to be more brutally honest.
