Like other folks, I'm disappointed in the author for deliberately misunderstanding the actual scenario here.
As I understand it Unity has said it would not do exactly what it has done. This isn't even a "rug-pull" in the sense that people assumed wrongly that Unity wouldn't do these things without explicit assurances. This is a company expressly going back on its word after people have gone all-in on its platform.
And the fact that Unity is trying to switch terms out from under people who've already agreed to and planned on different terms.
Hashicorp is rightfully getting slammed for abruptly changing licenses, but its community has the final releases under the old licenses to fall back on. With Unity it's a major bait-and-switch.
I don't buy the argument that developers shouldn't be angry at Unity. If Unity's model is not profitable or profitable enough there are plenty of ways that it could've approached this that might have been a bit painful but not nearly as harmful.
As I understand it Unity has said it would not do exactly what it has done. This isn't even a "rug-pull" in the sense that people assumed wrongly that Unity wouldn't do these things without explicit assurances. This is a company expressly going back on its word after people have gone all-in on its platform.
And the fact that Unity is trying to switch terms out from under people who've already agreed to and planned on different terms.
Hashicorp is rightfully getting slammed for abruptly changing licenses, but its community has the final releases under the old licenses to fall back on. With Unity it's a major bait-and-switch.
I don't buy the argument that developers shouldn't be angry at Unity. If Unity's model is not profitable or profitable enough there are plenty of ways that it could've approached this that might have been a bit painful but not nearly as harmful.