Hah - Legal at my company wouldn't respond to this by forcing us to pay. They'd take one look at that bizarre EULA and tell us to stop using the product entirely. I suspect this is what will happen in most cases.

Perhaps that's fine in the eyes of the maintainers! But I say this every time someone says they want to restrict commercial use while still being Open Source: just slap AGPL on it. It's radioactive to enterprises; I've never worked anywhere that allowed us to use AGPL code in commercial products. Then, charge for a commercial license.

▲

robmensching 21 hours ago | parent [-]

This hasn't been the case as of yet. We've had many large companies just pay the sponsorship. Honestly, the problem is not the EULA, it's the need for more flexibility in invoicing than GitHub Sponsors provides today.

To say it another way, legal is cool with it, the challenge now is making it easy for procurement.

▲

threemux 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Honest question: how would you know if companies stopped using the product as a result of this change? Presumably the only ones you'd hear from are ones that managed to get through the process far enough to complain about procurement (which is definitely another issue, pretty sure GitHub Sponsors doesn't do net 60...)

	▲	AndyNemmity 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		right, we wouldn't mention it at all. no way legal would approve it, so we'd just move to something else.