It is absurd to call this license change stealing when the previous work is still available under the original license. This is more like someone who is giving to the community, still continuing to give, but with a slightly more strict license. Do you expect someone who is doing philantropic work, gets contributions from others, but later becomes less philantropic to change their name?

> NEVER NEVER NEVER have had the traction

There is plenty of even closed source software which has traction in many domains, let alone software released under a license which as anti-rez points out allows the users to freely run their websites on redis, modify and redistribute code etc.(with the exception of running hosting services like Amazon).

For instance, it would be amazing and a great improvement if there was a top-quality CAD program with a similar license to Redis.

You clearly feel very strongly about this topic; out of curiosity, are you a Redis contributor? If so, was your contribution done via your day job (paid time) or was it an outside/independent contribution?

> I feel like once a software is open sourced the name of that software should also be required to remain open sourced as well, and any closing of the source must come with a requirement of forking the software and changing the name.

Who should enforce such a requirement, and under what mechanism?

Open source licenses are copyright licenses, whereas product names are trademarks. These are separate legal concepts. Meanwhile "the community" isn't even a legal entity at all. As I understand it, there's nothing to "start litigating" here, and no one to litigate it.

Are you proposing that the OSI should change the OSD such that open source licenses must include mandatory trademark assignment to an independent nonprofit foundation? That's a rather extreme view if so.