"Folk ask themselves, why contribute to this thing (MIT/GPL licenses) if there some for-profit entity involved?"
You put MIT or GPL in the same bucket here, but really shouldn't because the difference is all that matters.
There is no "rug-pull" as you call it. What happened with Redis is what the BSD license allows and what people should expect to happen.
The combination of GPL (or AGPL) with a large enough and diverse set of contributors who keep their rights in their contributions is a proven way to prevent what happened with Redis.
It is our decision as publishers of open-source projects which way we want to go. It is our decision as contributors which open-source projects we support.
Both ways are fine, but blaming others that you regret your decision is not.
You put MIT or GPL in the same bucket here, but really shouldn't because the difference is all that matters.
There is no "rug-pull" as you call it. What happened with Redis is what the BSD license allows and what people should expect to happen.
The combination of GPL (or AGPL) with a large enough and diverse set of contributors who keep their rights in their contributions is a proven way to prevent what happened with Redis.
It is our decision as publishers of open-source projects which way we want to go. It is our decision as contributors which open-source projects we support.
Both ways are fine, but blaming others that you regret your decision is not.