@alex @linux_mclinuxface to me it's a line in the sand that restrictions based on specifics of the usage aren't acceptable. if the entire thing had started out from the beginning as SSPL I'd appreciate the gesture of the company making their proprietary code base *almost* open source. whereas changing to a non-FOSS license out of the blue after lots of volunteers have contributed under FOSS terms I find highly objectionable. it's a betrayal of the trust placed in them to steward the project

also what @lanodan said about apparently there being no CLA. if that's true then this is a blatant license violation anyway