MongoDB C# would not require a license, correct. They can upgrade to version 8, no problem.

So to understand better, if https://github.com/ravendb/ravendb would use fluentassertions, they would be allowed to use it for free in the SDK code but not the actual server side code? The sdk itself isn't a commercial product?

To me as a lay person the license can easily be interpreted to mean that Mongo db is not allowed to use fluent assertions without a license. Mongo db is a commercial entity. They are not providing csharp bindings out of the goodness of their heart. They are doing this as part of their commercial activities, in order to increase usage of their commercial product. Any activities by a commercial entity are by definition commercial in nature,whether they directly charge fees or have direct income from those activities or not doesn't really matter. That the csharp bindings are distributed under an open source license does not automatically mean that the use of the software is non-commercial.

So to understand better, if https://github.com/ravendb/ravendb would use fluentassertions, they would be allowed to use it for free in the SDK code but not the actual server side code? The sdk itself isn't a commercial product?

We will need to carefully review their licensing terms. That said, if a commercial company provides an open-source and free tool, they are permitted to use FluentAssertions 8. Should you have any legal concerns regarding the use of a library, please feel free to contact us directly. We will make every effort to clarify and address the matter.

If you need to reach us, you can do so by emailing sales@xceed.com.

What compensation are you offering for those that do submit changes for your library?

Clearly none - no reason to utilise version 8.0 edition nor contribute to it. Nobody is going to do free work whilst someone else profits for it, violating what OSS is about.

The only future will be in whatever fork establishes itself on version 8.0 rc2 if that happens at all (under the old license which is not revocable ie Apace 2.0 'Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work').' Apache 2.0 is explicitly stated to be perpetual.

edit a fork already exists at https://github.com/AwesomeAssertions/AwesomeAssertions

These are the same people who closed down comments on the license pull request (#2943) because it got 'too controversial'. Anyone who can try and go this route when there are projects relying on its open source nature should not be trusted in the future imho. Trust is hard to gain, easy to lose.

The fact that its super easy to accidentally upgrade to the new version and thus be under the new licensing terms by default is extremely shady. As is the running of powershell scripts to modify the registry on package download.

Its not even my department but on reflection have had to make our AT Testers doubly aware because it seems to open us up to alot of unnecessary risk, all in an attempt to catch us out for $$$. Unfortunately, it is neither the first or last to go this route and add unnecessary work and overhead for us.

The only future will be in whatever fork establishes itself on version 8.0 rc2 if that happens at all

Agreed! This whole deal has been so hamfisted.... like it was done with no legal team and then engineers were asked to handle the PR on github.

We do offer compensation on a case by case basis, please reach out to sales@xceed.com so we can have a discussion. The other thread was closed because it turned into personal attacks that was not constructive. We have already compensated a few users that were contributors with a positive outcome.

The accidental upgrade is something we're addressing as well to avoid confusion again, on a case by case basis.