That's another company that feels like they don't want to be an OSS company after all. After Elastic, I pay more attention to contributor agreements. Basically I consider any project that requires transfer of copyright for OSS contributions as likely to change their license at some point. It's fine; I'm not against that sort of thing and I sometimes pay for software. But I like to know what I'm getting into before and I don't appreciate the bait and switch. It also guides decisions as to what I contribute to actively.

I do a simple sanity check with any OSS software before using it:

- Make sure there is no contributor agreement requirements. This is a gigantic red flag that the license can and probably will be changed at some point.

- Make sure the license is not overly restrictive (like AGPL). I appreciate people have good reasons for picking this license; but it comes with some serious restrictions in a commercial environment. And like it or not, a lot of companies have active policies against this. Either way, I avoid anything with this license.

- Make sure the project is actively maintained. You don't want to get stuck with unmaintained software. Replacing dependencies is a PITA.

- Make sure the project is not overly dependent on VC funding. Startups fail all the time at which point anything they worked on turns into abandon ware.

- Ideally, make sure the project has a healthy diverse group of committers. Healthy here means more than one company is involved. Most projects that fail one or more of the above tests usually aren't very healthy in this sense.