> I would say it's opposite. No one contributes to open source and the developers have to make money on the side to work on the project
You missed the important part of his sentence:
> All those open source copycat projects, using open source to get exposure then switching
The original open source here was Cassandra. Scylla exists to pick off that market share. They launch with a free license, pull customers, then swap license. The actual adoption of Scylla would have been a fraction had it been released under this license to start, which everyone understands.
> Or more often companies with money come to fork an open source project from the developer, and continue pretending it's their own now
It had already been AGPL, so it's not like they're protecting against competition. They already had a license that avoided the forking problem. This isn't protection against AWS (keyspaces likely has more OSS cassandra code in the protocol tier than it has Scylla code, if it has either). It's protection against free consumption.
You missed the important part of his sentence:
> All those open source copycat projects, using open source to get exposure then switching
The original open source here was Cassandra. Scylla exists to pick off that market share. They launch with a free license, pull customers, then swap license. The actual adoption of Scylla would have been a fraction had it been released under this license to start, which everyone understands.
> Or more often companies with money come to fork an open source project from the developer, and continue pretending it's their own now
It had already been AGPL, so it's not like they're protecting against competition. They already had a license that avoided the forking problem. This isn't protection against AWS (keyspaces likely has more OSS cassandra code in the protocol tier than it has Scylla code, if it has either). It's protection against free consumption.