[kinow]

I haven't adopted uv yet watching to see what will be their move. We recently had to review our use of Anaconda tools due to their changes, then review Qt changes in license. Not looking forward to another license ordeal.

[zanie]

We're hoping that building a commercial service makes it clear that we have a sustainable business model and that our tools (like uv) will remain free and permissively licensed.

(I work at Astral)

[simonw]

I think having a credible, proven business model is a feature of an open source project - without one there are unanswered questions about ongoing maintenance.

I'm glad to see Astral taking steps towards that.

[jsmeaton]

I've been wondering where the commercial service would come in and this sounds like just the right product that aligns with what you're already doing and serves a real need. Setting up scalable private registries for python is awful.

[__mharrison__]

You know what they say: The best time to adopt uv was last year...

I'm all seriousness, I'm all in on uv. Better than any competition by a mile. Also makes my training and clients much happier.

[lenerdenator]

Fortunately for a lot of what uv does, one can simply switch to something else like Poetry. Not exactly a zero-code lift but if you use pyproject.toml, there are other tools.

Of course if you are on one of the edge cases of something only uv does, well... that's more of an issue.

[int_19h]

Given how widely popular uv is, I'm pretty sure that in the event of any impactful license change it would immediately get forked.