Correct; however, without a CLA and assuming there are outside contributors, relicensing the existing code would be mildly painful, if not downright impossible.
But, to refocus on the case at hand: Astral's tools don't require contributors to sign a CLA. I understand (and am sympathetic) to the suspicion here, but the bigger picture here is that Astral wants to build services as a product, rather than compromising the open source nature of its tools. That's why the announcement tries to cleanly differentiate between the two.
>bigger picture here is that Astral wants to build services as a product
What services? pyx? Looks nice but I doubt my boss is going to pay for it. More likely they just say "Whatever, package is in PyPi, use that."
UV, Ruff, Ty. Again, maybe they can get some data/quant firm who REALLY cares about speed to use their products. Everyone else will emit a long sigh, grab pip/poetry, black and mypy and move on.
Some companies specify that packages need to be hosted on their internal repository/artifactory, and for these companies, pyx might be a good tool.
MongoDB had a CLA from the start, didn't it?
> Astral's tools don't require contributors to sign a CLA.
That's a pretty vital difference!
> That's a pretty vital difference
Not really when the license is MIT/Apache. They can create a closed source fork and continue development there.
I do like your strategy, hope it works out!