> So the maintainers should be legally required to maintain the software, for free, forever, just because you depend on it?
No, but I can see the following as not being unreasonable:
1. They can't retroactively change the terms of using the previous versions or accessing it's code.
2. They should maybe start their new commercial version under a different name. They built a reputation on an open source brand, and they had other people promote them because of that open source status. I'm not sure the commercial version should get to start from the brand reputation that the open source version's name automatically conveys. This i think is a big part of the bait and switch the OP was referring to and it seems like a somewhat reasonable compromise.
I'm not saying these apply fully to this situation, but as maybe just general guidelines if moving from an open source model to a commercial model.
No, but I can see the following as not being unreasonable:
1. They can't retroactively change the terms of using the previous versions or accessing it's code.
2. They should maybe start their new commercial version under a different name. They built a reputation on an open source brand, and they had other people promote them because of that open source status. I'm not sure the commercial version should get to start from the brand reputation that the open source version's name automatically conveys. This i think is a big part of the bait and switch the OP was referring to and it seems like a somewhat reasonable compromise.
I'm not saying these apply fully to this situation, but as maybe just general guidelines if moving from an open source model to a commercial model.