tbh; dotnet foundation really doesn’t provide much value to member projects. See https://www.isdotnetopen.com for context.
> The .NET Foundation accepts projects that use permissive licenses within that set [of OSI-approved licenses].
> The board clarified that projects in the Foundation must use a permissive OSI-approved license and that projects would all be treated the same.
Per the linked article https://sixlabors.com/posts/license-changes/
> Previous attempts (sponsorship, support license) to provide a sustainable income to ensure the continued development of the Six Labors libraries have not proven successful, yielding less than a few months of developer income over a period of several years.
It sounds like James' monetization efforts were unsuccessful. The new monetization approach and relicensing is not considered compatible with the open source nature of the dotnet foundation. Whether the new approach works remains to be seen, but it likely burned a lot of community goodwill.
True, I hope it does.
> but it likely burned a lot of community goodwill
That also remains to be seen. And would it burn less community goodwill to stop developing the project at all?
Also it doesn't really matter if this move burns community goodwill. It's the author's decision to make. Any member of the community is free to fork before the license change, and any member of the community is free to not submit patches upstream.
It could. Burning goodwill is an easy way to incentivise new open source competitors.