It’s no longer surprising when a corporate-owned open source project abruptly shifts to a more restrictive ‘source-available’ license, such as SSPL or BSL. However, foundation-backed open source software has traditionally offered greater stability in this regard. While commercial sponsors may change and funding levels can fluctuate, the underlying software license has generally remained the same.

That’s what makes the whole NATS situation so unusual—and honestly, a bit alarming. If Synadia manages to pull NATS out of the CNCF and switch its license, it could shake people’s trust in the idea that foundation-governed open source projects are safe from that kind of change.

Here is CNCF message,  response from Synadia’s Derek  Collison (original creator of NATS), and also HackerNews discussion  for those seeking more first-hand information on this topic  

I won’t go over the whole story again, but I do want to call out a few key points.

First off, I think the NATS community deserves to have a say—this isn’t a decision Derek and Synadia should be making on their own. If supporting open source NATS just isn’t sustainable for them anymore, they should fork the project, apply whatever license they want, and pour their resources into that new version. Maybe that new fork takes off and NATS fades out. Or maybe the community rallies, new sponsors step in, and NATS keeps thriving as an open source project. Either way, the choice should be in the hands of the community, not a single company.

Second, donating a project to the CNCF should be a one-way street. You can’t just take it back later—and honestly, that’s kind of the whole point. It’s about giving the community ownership and ensuring the project lives beyond the original sponsor’s control.

Third, if Synadia really wants a commercially licensed version of the NATS server, there’s nothing stopping them from doing that, without needing to “take back” or fork the whole thing. They could offer something like “Synadia Enterprise for NATS” and still benefit from the brand recognition they’ve built. What they wouldn’t get, of course, is exclusive control over the NATS name, which might be what they’re really after.

Finally, there’s a lesson here for the CNCF too. If it wants people to trust the projects it hosts, it needs to make sure situations like this don’t happen. That means locking down all the key assets—like trademarks and licensing rights—before fully accepting a project. If things are still legally messy, like with the NATS trademark, maybe those projects should be flagged with a different status to show they’re not yet fully aligned with CNCF’s IP and governance standards.

 Subscribe via RSS