Python

Fork the last commit with a LGPL commit?

GPL mentions explicitly that it is irrevocable, where as LGPL doesn't mention anything about it. IANAL, but it looks like there is a case for irrevocable without violation of clauses by default https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4012/are-licenses-irrevocable-by-default#4013

For people considering contributing to FOSS in the future, maybe check for irrevocable clauses? I wish licenses selectors https://choosealicense.com highlighted this part more clearly.

If any contributors haven't signed a contract letting them close the source, this opens them up to lawsuits.

They claim that not enough people donated, hence the change in licensing. But yeah, I don’t see the business case. I imagine commercial devs will just move on to something else.

It’s just a wrapper for other GUI libraries.

That and I’m sure it’ll be forked.

How else do you expect their time to be paid for?

Donations?

How is this trial enforced?

Since it's now closed source and they distribute what is possibly/probably/presumably a binary blob, the same way all the others are enforced. With some kind of DRM date checking whatever.

The user has to have a key to use the software, no free account then no key after 30 days unless the developer paid for the key.

I wonder if you typed that with a straight face. If so then you are wildly out of touch with how FOSS and the democratization of FOSS development works.

You use words like “entitled” as a derogatory term when you clearly don’t understand that yes, the community is entitled because that’s how these FOSS licenses work. And people have every right to be upset when the status quo changes for a project they have also helped develop and helped get popular.

So either you are trolling, or you are clueless. Either way you should be ignored and this is as much time I’m going to waste writing this comment.

The previous code exists under an irrevocable open source license, so they are entitled to it. Also, fuck off.

The amount of people who feel like they’re entitled to the previous code and are calling the license change scummy make me sick.

But you're not sick at the fact that they licensed it as LGPL just to get their product popular and then said "I got the eyeballs I wanted, time to milk this!"

This developer put their own free time into this project

When your code is open source the expectation is that you are sharing code with people for free so that the community can enjoy the work and hopefully you gain respect and popularity as your product matures and a lot of people utilize it. People might even fund you for your hard work if you become popular enough. Maybe a whole new product gets developed on top of your product and you become important. That's how a lot of successful open source projects work.

If you are entitled to quick success, we are entitled to our ideology around FLOSS.

they made sure to not accept anyone else’s code.

So they just wanted people to test their product and market them for free? Who's entitled here?

(Also that argument is not going to work in court when people sue them for violating LGPL terms)

and they understandably felt they deserve to be paid for their time

What about the compensation for people who beta-tested this product for free and recommended them to others?

But otherwise, you should really reflect on how you’re giving back to the people who make the tools you feel oh so entitled to.

The giving back part is increasing respect, popularity, and a community of contributors who will grow YOUR product for free. Don't act like this small project is a gift from God.

Also, the author literally didn't accept contributions. That just means they were looking for free marketing and eyeballs. As soon as it was convenient for them to pull the rug they did so without even thinking about the community. Who's the scumbag, you tell me?

Do you know if there were any other contributors to the project? I've always held the view that the tail of contributors should prevent relicensing under incompatible terms.

It's a shame you are being downvoted, although I don't (mostly) agree with you, I feel your opinion contributes positively to the discussion.

The previous code was released under lgpl so…. Yeah if you can find a copy of it you are entitled to it. That was the developer’s choice.

Taking all the old code down with a force push to GitHub suddenly is a bit futile since obviously there are ways to get the old source.

I’m not against developers getting paid, but there’s definitely a ‘rug-pulling’ aspect to this situation that leaves a bad taste.

Only to a certain extent.

The problem is that a lot of software is very complex and requires full-time development/maintenance. It's simply not possible to work on stuff for free unless this is just a hobby and you can sustain yourself with a main job.

The main thing I have a problem with this instance is the following sequence of events

1. The developer licensed it as LGPL.
2. They did not accept ANY contributions to the code.
3. The project became popular enough for people to post about in the fediverse (quite popular then, I guess)
4. They got donations for their work, but apparently it was not enough.
5. They removed the project from being accessible and moved to a paid only model.

This tells me:

1. Their intention all along was to abuse FOSS community for popularity, traction, clout and free testing by people who are also doing this stuff in their free time.
2. They got donations, but for whatever reason it was not enough for them. => Were they expecting to make retirement level income from their project which is in a crowded segment?

PyQt.