But with open source projects the community has the option to fork and carry on the code as the community wishes.
With licenses where a company owns and limits the IP, the community is stuck and can just stop using the project.
I think that’s a big difference.
This project is MIT-licensed, so that applies here too?
MIT license is one of the most permissive open source software licenses. What’s the problem?
Problem: They want someone else to maintain this feature long-term.
You can fork this, otherwise it would not be open source by definition.
Source-available is not open source. Which situation are you describing? A traditional open source project, with a traditional open source license, still won’t tend to allow people carte blanche access to things like e.g. trademarks. Otherwise, your rights tend to be fairly equal to that of an open-core project .
(a) You could do that here. (b) It's not exactly realistic to take on every open source project because the maintainers refuse certain simple fixes and additions. You'd very quickly become a hoarder of open source projects.
You can solve (b) by hiring people to do this for you.
Still not realistic. If this is the end state of open source software (i.e., "just fork it"), then it's not exactly a winning model, is it?
This is literally one of the primary points of OSS.