commented:
I don’t think requiring copyright and patent grant should be the only
thing immediately elevating a project as “high relicensing risk”, it’s
mostly just there to keep the lawyers happy. As far as I know, MS has
never relicensed anything open to something more restrictive (if they
have, it’s obscure enough for me to have never heard of). You mostly
see companies doing that because they sell one single software package
and either want to be profitable or just to sell the whole company,
which MS isn’t going to do. It feels like a pretty naive way to gauge
risk that hasn’t taken actual real-world examples and reasoning for
relicensing into account. In fact, I’d go as far as to argue a cloud
company has the least possible incentive to relicense, especially
because it would mean alienating their developer base, which would
directly affect their cloud clientele. As an example, I think Amazon
directly forked Redis to keep it open source, didn’t they?

  commented:
I appreciate the effort collating announcements, but the comparison to
“rug pulls” is wrong and entitled.
Existing releases aren’t suddenly being turned from open to
restricted. If there was any forward-looking promise from the project
stewards, it wasn’t free lunch forever, but that users would be able
to cook for themselves. I’ve yet to read about a project that changes
its going-forward license policy and doesn’t tell outside
contributors, so as to keep drawing contributions.
Projects don’t have licenses. Releases do.
.