In hindsight this should've been all the warning anyone needed.
In the future, when a BDFL telegraphs that they're willing to abuse their powers like this, we need to fork immediately. Open source is more important than any single project or any single BDFL. We can't allow open source to appear risky or unreliable relative to proprietary software, subject to the whims of volatile personalities.
Open source is kind of like libraries - an institution for the collective good people managed to erect in the past that would be neigh impossible to replicate today. Imagine convincing companies in any other industry to collaborate openly and freely with their competitors merely because it's good for society as a whole. You'd be labeled a socialist and laughed out of the room.
Companies don't, as a rule, do this in software either. They make projects open source or contribute to open source projects because it's good for them. This is just as true in other industries. This is how every industry standard and protocol or similar works. It is beneficial to the participating companies and does not threaten them.
It's not that they don't benefit from collaborating, it's that they don't benefit as much as they could by demanding a royalty or licensing fee. Why shouldn't they? Everyone expects to be paid for their services. They're leaving money on the table for the benefit of the public at large.
Most of the "open" standards from other industries that I'm familiar with require a license, and certainly aren't open to participation by anyone and everyone. Let alone allowing you to modify and redistribute them.
But in software we've created a culture with different expectations. And I don't think we should take that for granted.
In the future, when a BDFL telegraphs that they're willing to abuse their powers like this, we need to fork immediately. Open source is more important than any single project or any single BDFL. We can't allow open source to appear risky or unreliable relative to proprietary software, subject to the whims of volatile personalities.
Open source is kind of like libraries - an institution for the collective good people managed to erect in the past that would be neigh impossible to replicate today. Imagine convincing companies in any other industry to collaborate openly and freely with their competitors merely because it's good for society as a whole. You'd be labeled a socialist and laughed out of the room.
If we lose it, it's probably gone for good.