Comment by andrewmcwatters
5 years ago
I don't see anything wrong here. I think licensing terms should heavily favor authors, because if you're writing FOSS, you're already giving away intellectual property for free.
You don't need to suffer any degree of support. Software in most cases is literally provided "as-is." There are no fruits to bare from providing something for free. Clout doesn't pay the bills.
I think people get really weird as soon as you cross the threshold of providing something for free versus something for even a nominal amount. As soon as you have to pay anything, it turns people off. Which is a good thing.
Contrary to this, I think we do see FOSS authors post every now and then that when their packages explode in popularity, they can't provide meaningful support, and end up closing down their FOSS project instead.
I think it's entitled to want to use someone's free work against their wishes. Why is he the bad guy? He acknowledges the licence allows it, but wants to change the licence in response to people wasting his time. That's surely fair game too.