They could have just stopped maintaining it. Versions that were already released would still be open. Nothing you can feasibly do about that. But if they no longer wanted future versions to be open source, they could have just announced that, and offered consulting services to add features, fix bugs, etc. Albeit, there'd be no way of stopping someone else with a fork of the last MIT licensed version from continuing open source development.
Passionate developer in Java and Scala. And sometimes, something else. A few months per year, someone calls me "professor". CoFounder of Scala By The Lagoon @scalagoon
It is well within the authors' rights. It's not on him to provide you with bug-free code, it's on you to check if the code you use with an open licence is up to what you need.
I am not saying it isn't. I am saying he deliberately broke it knowing it would break all the projects who relied on it and had nothing to do with the kerfuffle.
Passionate developer in Java and Scala. And sometimes, something else. A few months per year, someone calls me "professor". CoFounder of Scala By The Lagoon @scalagoon
They HAD something to do with it: they depended on it.
Was it an aggressive move, that caused problems? yes.
Was it within what the licence and copyright laws permit him to do? yes, too.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Is there a safer way to change your piece of coding from being open-source and free of charge to a paid one rather than injecting a bug into it?
They could have just stopped maintaining it. Versions that were already released would still be open. Nothing you can feasibly do about that. But if they no longer wanted future versions to be open source, they could have just announced that, and offered consulting services to add features, fix bugs, etc. Albeit, there'd be no way of stopping someone else with a fork of the last MIT licensed version from continuing open source development.
Completely agree here. Not much else you can do if older versions of your software are OSS, free of charge.
It is well within the authors' rights. It's not on him to provide you with bug-free code, it's on you to check if the code you use with an open licence is up to what you need.
Uh...except he deliberately did it.
It's still within his right's. It's MIT, it's very forward about being warranty free.
I am not saying it isn't. I am saying he deliberately broke it knowing it would break all the projects who relied on it and had nothing to do with the kerfuffle.
They HAD something to do with it: they depended on it.
Was it an aggressive move, that caused problems? yes.
Was it within what the licence and copyright laws permit him to do? yes, too.