> The other side of the coin is that this move is totally in their rights, morally and legally.

Legally, sure. That's pretty binary.

But if you claim they have the moral right to do so you need to elaborate on that. Since they had a "social contract" with the community (people who submitted PR's, advocated for Redis, etc.) which a single side has now altered. I don't see how one can do that an claim to be in their moral rights to do so.

We've altered the deal, pray we don't alter it any further...

> This is one way to see it. The other side of the coin is that this move is totally in their rights, morally and legally.

Morally I would say it depends on contributors. If there haven't been any then sure, but if I contributed a feck-load of code to some project and they slap on a commercial license, I guess I feel somewhat shafted.

> It is our obligation as developers to communicate to companies if we want these license changes to happen or not. If you don't like it, don't contribute and invest your time into projects that are licensed in way that matches your needs and wants.

The best thing you can do is to fork the project at the commit prior to the license change, and maintain it from that point onwards (and/or contribute to other forks with the same goal).