That's exactly why I am reluctant to do anything with Polars. They are actively running a company and trying to sell a product. At any point they could be acquired and change the license for new releases. Sure you could fork it, or stay on an older version, but if what they offer isn't compelling enough for you then why take the risk?

Pandas on the other hand has been open source for almost two decades, and is supported by many companies. They have a governance board, and an active community. The risk of it going off the rails into corporate nonsense is much lower.

I would broaden the list of risks:

- Pandas is interwoven into downstream projects. So it will be here to stay for a long time. This is good for maintenance and stability. Advantage: Pandas.

- OTOH, the Pandas experience is awful; this was obvious to many from the outset, and yet it persisted. I haven't tracked the history. But my guess would be the competition from Polars was a key pressure for improvement. Edge: Polars.

- Lots of Python projects are moving to Rust-backed tooling: uv, Polars, etc. Front-end users get the convenience of Python and tool-developers get the confidence & capabilities of Rust. Edge: Polars.

- Pandas has a governance structure not tied to one company. Polars does not. (comment above said this) Advantage: Pandas.

But this could change. Polars users could (and may already be?) pressing for company-independent governance.