I wrote about this conundrum a few years ago: https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/archives/3438
OSS is a great way to build a community, increase adoption, and get attention. It isn't perfect at that, but it beats alternatives, for devtools at least.
But then you need to make money (especially if you've taken VC).
That's when the problems start. It's hard to make money on OSS unless you are using it as a complement to something you can sell. Especially in the age of hyperscalers.
And, as other posts indicate, switching from OSS midstream burns any goodwill you had when you started, and opens you up to forks.
It's not unique to OSS, though. Even devtools that cost money or are free but not OSS run into issues making money. Devs are a hard audience to sell to, in my experience. I know I am stingy.
no, devs aren't hard to sell to. It's business owners that are hard to sell to.
If you are running a business, every cost needs to be controlled for you to be profitable. Adopting open source is a form of cost control.
The problem of OSS is that the value proposition is that it is free-as-in-beer (as well as all of the benefits of OSS). So if/when the software becomes not free-as-in-beer, the company will have to reconsider, or change, or eat the cost if the cost is lower than the value generation of the software.
Open Source may also be less expensive, but I am paying with some combination of time and efort and support contracts or other service and sponsorships.
That depends on who you consider the user. If it's the person buying managed redis, then this license change doesn't affect any user freedoms.
I don't know, it feels like this way of doing things doesn't work well, but pure open source also doesn't work well when you want to pay salaries to a bunch of devs.