foundation

If you read the letter from Synadia to the CNCF committee [1], the license change and taking control back to commercialize NATS is the entire reason for the change. It's not because they're unhappy about the CNCF or that they're not getting their money's worth; that is at best a red herring. If they genuinely thought the CNCF's governance was lacking, there are ways for them to take steps to improve the situation without a license change. But that's not what they're doing. They cannot continue at the CNCF if NATS is turned into a proprietary product. All the lofty words about a strong commitment to open source has no merit now. If they were committed to open source, they would stay with the CNCF. I wish companies had the courage to be forthright: Synadia gave something away for free, they now regret that nobody is paying what they think t

I just finished rearchitecting a core service at work to use NATS for distributed state. Really unsure about the viability of NATS as an open source product if Synadia stops contributing. It's making me reconsider our architecture change, maybe we should stick with a more stable (albeit less aligned) alternative. summarising some context for folks; From Synadia's Cease and Demand Letter: > As should be clear, the NATS.io project has failed to thrive as a CNCF project, with essentially all growth of the project to date arising from Synadia’s efforts and at Synadia’s expense. It is for this reason that Synadia requests to end its relationship with the Foundation and receive full control of the nats.io domain name and Github repository within two weeks. From Synadia's exit proposal: > We propose that NATS.io exit from the CNCF Foundation eff