Deeply and needlessly cynical. rui tried to fund a high-value software infrastructure project on its own merit and it's not feasible long term. So a change is required.
Hardly a bait and switch 'extortion'.
Hardly a bait and switch 'extortion'.
There are so many better ways to handle such a situation.
If you replace "building software" with "building a road" (or some other similar real-world infrastructure project), everyone would agree that it's a self-made problem and that there are other ways out rather than just "from tomorrow on this will be a toll-road". You can turn the road over to your city/municipality. Or you could let other take over the maintenance. If the road is useful, there will be others. If it isn't, well, everyone moves on.
Why? Did the community give to him? It certainly sounds like it hasn't. What obligations does one have to a community that doesn't give back?
> There are so many better ways to handle such a situation.
Better for who? You? Or him?
If open-source communities want open-source, they're going to need to come to grips with the need for people to eat, and to do that they are at minimum going to need to pass the hat. If they're not going to do that, this happens, and telling somebody who isn't you what they should do for "the community when "the community" doesn't support them is, frankly, wrong verging on immoral.
The code is out there for the community to pick up if they wish; anyone can rise up as a maintainer.
Besides, how does above help at all in the author getting paid?
Wrong - this is a false dichotomy. "changing" license is not retroactive. Older releases are still available to the community and anybody can fork the project and carry on a new release train.