It’s a shame it didn’t work out for them due to bad actors.
The trend I see is for the next generation of good open-source great ideas to be much more protective around their intellectual property. Such a loss, again, due to bad actors.
Similar point here. Hashicorp have very good products that are open source as a way to foster collaboration. Freeloaders rebrand it and re-sell with no added value, so Hashicorp are forced to close it (or more like put a timer) to protect their investment.
As I said, I'm a big fan of open-source, and have been working on it for a long time, but am growing more and more frustrated with the current state of things, so much so, that it makes a lot of sense to me that companies that start with great collaboration spirit are forced to tighten their sources due to bad actors in the system.
Agreed. It can't mean anything other than that you can't compete on a fair playing field, so you have to add restrictions to lock customers into your service. That you wrote the service is irrelevant since you licensed it as a gift to the world. It's exactly what Free Software was designed to thwart, and exactly what open source was designed to preserve.
Ideally your moneymaker can compete on its own without being dependent upon gatekeeping how the open source part is used. But with project ownership means you can change the rules for your competitors, but it's also a sign that you fear your offering is not competitive enough without the rule change.