[rickspencer3]

In my experience, issues like this occur when people project ethical standards onto projects when those ethical standards are not embedded in the license.

In my view, if you believe it is unethical for someone to re-license your Apache code with their own proprietary license, then it shouldn't have an Apache license.

Taking a proprietary fork of an Apache licensed code base and creating an Enterprise product around it seems like a valid business move to me. My guess is that the "uproar" is not coming from the original project creators, but from outside community members who consider such things "anti-social" or whatnot, but I could be wrong.

[kunley]

Yes but they don't defend their view about enterprise product, instead saying they "chatgpt'ed" the license and "can't be bothered with legal", which is IMO even worse - I mean, as a founder how can one be so dumb to openly say that? Especially that they have access to YC's legal and administrative support?

[evanelias]

> if you believe it is unethical for someone to re-license your Apache code with their own proprietary license, then it shouldn't have an Apache license.

It's not just unethical, it is clearly illegal.

If you don't own the copyright to a program's source code, you cannot legally relicense that source code! Same holds true for any other copyrightable creative work which can be licensed. This is a very clear case of copyright infringement.

Nothing in the Apache license permits the licensee to relicense the source code (meaning, entirely replace the license with a different one).

It does permit you to build derivative enterprise products, and you have no obligation to keep the source code open for derivative products. But if you do release the source code for your derivative product, any original unmodified Apache licensed portion of the code retains that license and you cannot remove it if you aren't the copyright holder for that original work.