It's a dev tool that isn't taking untrusted input, right? Then no, I don't think security patches are a big deal.

Also I feel like "obsolete" is the wrong word for that.

Other than puritanism, what exactly stops you from using the FSL version? It's not like you're a hyperscaler hosting their product as a SaaS.

What you call puritanism is a fight for user software freedom to be recognized as a fundamental right.

Your phrasing is malicious. It waves off a 40 year fight from many reasonable people as extreme and ridiculous, or as religious-like.

Did you expect me to answer "no, nothing else than puritanism" to your question?

Well, I won't.

Again, that's a terrible presentation of the situation. It makes me look like I defend AWS.

That's like saying that although I could, I won't vote for candidate C who is against the freedom of the press when candidate C would prevent awful newspaper N from publishing its horrible bullshit.

I'd prefer newspaper N not to publish bullshit, or even to not exist at all, but I wouldn't want this to cost the freedom of the press.

AWS doing terrible things shouldn't cost us user software freedom.

Yes, indeed, there's stuff that I will do or won't do out of principles, of course! Even if it would be convenient to do otherwise! Is this an alien concept?

How is this difficult to understand that someone doesn't want compromises on rights that ought to be fundamental?

Since the supposed software freedom only affects resellers, one way to "look" less like you're out here defending aws would be to not spend 8+ posts defending aws.

It puts you in bed with a community where you're too locked in. If there's only one provider that's allowed to sell an online SaaS-based version of the software, then if they do a poor job of hosting it, or don't host it in a configuration that suits my needs, I literally have no choice.

I've written about this in other comments, but this happened to me in 2015 hosting Elasticsearch and the official Elasticsearch hosting offering just didn't support CPU configurations that were proper for geohashing heavy workloads. I had to switch to AWS to get that. They even talked to the head of sales, and they said, yeah, we're working on it, but right now your best bet is to switch. Under a license like this, that wouldn't be possible.

You can host it yourself, right?

But they can't pick a vendor who may host it better than the original authors. And the only reason for that is because the authors maybe would make less money that way.

"maybe would make less money" could be a catastrophic undermining of their business model, also ruining their ability to continue development, so I am very sympathetic to that reason.

Being stuck between "host it yourself" or "don't have the latest features" is pretty far from a rock and hard place.

I am even confused about this dichotomy. Like, who is NOT hosting liquibase himself? It is a dev tool.