@hynek @sethmlarson @freakboy3742 @jacob @sgillies And the difficulty with VC money here is that it can burn out *all* the other projects in the ecosystem simultaneously, creating a risk of monoculture, where previously, I think we can say that "monoculture" was the *least* of Python's packaging concerns.
@glyph @hynek @sethmlarson @freakboy3742 @jacob @sgillies Yeah, the thing I worry about is the Uber/Lyft “we’re in this to undercut the competition until they go out of business” model where they just light money on fire until there are no competing projects left in any of the spaces they target. That alone is reason for me to support and maintain competitors.
@ubernostrum @glyph @sethmlarson @freakboy3742 @jacob @sgillies a) that’s what people WANT. It’s emphatically not what _I_ want but talk to Python normies, look at the blog posts: they all want one tool to rule them all and consider the current state of having to choose bad.
b) you can’t fork Uber/Lyft, so I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. If uv were commercially-licensed I would get the argument, but not as long as it’s MIT/Apache.
@hynek @ubernostrum @glyph @sethmlarson @freakboy3742 @jacob @sgillies
> but not as long as it’s MIT/Apache.
Haven't we seen this movie enough times (MongoDB, Elastic, Redis, Hashi) to recognize the VC playbook on license changes?
I know you said in another reply that you expect Astral will flame out and the community will need to fork uv, but I think it's more likely they'll do a license change first. This would also result in a fork, but Astral then keeps uv going as proprietary software.
Edited 79d ago