> I'd argue that you're actually safer with open source software since you can pick up and keep running it, but that's not a trivial undertaking.
I agree with that. It's just that I find it very annoying that these companies turn against the OSS (user) community after they've gained enough market share by taking advantage of the community's trust and network. This discussion thread itself is full of people calling the users 'entitled'. That's some level of gaslighting! The real question is, how much would these projects have succeeded if they had started under the same terms as the ones they've now switched to? If the answer is 'not very much', then that means the community added significant value to the product, which these companies are now refusing to share and running away with. These companies are the entitled ones, besides being deceptive and dishonest.
The case with MinIO is not as egregious as the others we have seen - elastic, for example. MinIO is still under an open source license. But their decisions to let the community edition documentation rot and to remove the web ui make it very clear that they're trying to make the community edition as unviable as possible without having to take the heat for going all out proprietary or source available. Does this tactic seem familiar? This exactly what Google does with AOSP. Slowly remove and replace its OSS parts with proprietary software and gradually kill the project. Again, it's deceptive, dishonest and distasteful.
Both free software and open source software have a tradition of not excluding anybody from participating in the process, community and contributions. But looking at how much certain companies damage the trust and fracture the community for some extra profit, it might be a good idea to start asking if they should even be given the opportunity to do so.
I agree with that. It's just that I find it very annoying that these companies turn against the OSS (user) community after they've gained enough market share by taking advantage of the community's trust and network. This discussion thread itself is full of people calling the users 'entitled'. That's some level of gaslighting! The real question is, how much would these projects have succeeded if they had started under the same terms as the ones they've now switched to? If the answer is 'not very much', then that means the community added significant value to the product, which these companies are now refusing to share and running away with. These companies are the entitled ones, besides being deceptive and dishonest.
The case with MinIO is not as egregious as the others we have seen - elastic, for example. MinIO is still under an open source license. But their decisions to let the community edition documentation rot and to remove the web ui make it very clear that they're trying to make the community edition as unviable as possible without having to take the heat for going all out proprietary or source available. Does this tactic seem familiar? This exactly what Google does with AOSP. Slowly remove and replace its OSS parts with proprietary software and gradually kill the project. Again, it's deceptive, dishonest and distasteful.
Both free software and open source software have a tradition of not excluding anybody from participating in the process, community and contributions. But looking at how much certain companies damage the trust and fracture the community for some extra profit, it might be a good idea to start asking if they should even be given the opportunity to do so.