开源项目可以脱离基金会吗?
Can Open Source Projects Exit Foundations?

原始链接: https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/05/nats-cncf-open-source/

Synadia,开源消息系统NATS的主要开发者,最近威胁要将NATS从CNCF撤出并切换到非开源许可证(BUSL),理由是Synadia需要生存发展,以及其对该项目的重大财务贡献。这引发了一场关于NATS商标所有权以及像CNCF这样的基金会托管的开源项目安全的辩论。人们担心CNCF在接受项目后,能否确保项目的长期稳定性并防止公司控制。 争议最终以Synadia将NATS商标转让给Linux基金会告终,而CNCF保留了对基础设施和资产的控制权。Synadia可以以新名称为专有产品创建NATS的分支,并且正在考虑基于开源NATS服务器的商业发行版。 这一事件凸显了开源社区中关于基金会作用和有效性的现有紧张关系,一些人批评了CNCF处理此事的做法。此事对开源造成了负面影响,让人质疑基金会支持项目的稳定性,并强调CNCF需要预先确保商标和许可权。NATS在CNCF中缺乏“毕业”地位也是一个促成因素。

Hacker News 上的一个帖子讨论了开源项目离开基金会的现象,起因是 NATS 项目试图“退出”CNCF。用户们争论项目是否真的能够离开,强调了商标所有权的重要性。由于开源许可证的存在,创建分支很容易,但保留用户取决于品牌认知度。MySQL 与 MariaDB 被用作例子,说明即使潜在产品更优秀,原品牌仍然占据主导地位。CNCF 的作用受到了质疑,一些人认为它主要推广项目,另一些人则强调了其在基础设施、安全审计和业务连续性方面的优势。NATS 的案例受到了批评,有人推测 Synadia 的财务动机导致了退出尝试的失败。该帖子突出了开源可持续性、商标控制以及商业利益与社区驱动开发之间平衡的复杂性。

原文

Last month, Synadia threatened to pull NATS from the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF), moving from the Apache 2.0 license to a non-open source license. While the dispute lasted only a few days, with both Synadia and CNCF agreeing that the project remains in the open source ecosystem, the dispute left many concerned about the long-term availability and support of open source projects.

NATS is an open source messaging system that enables secure, high-performance, and scalable communication between distributed systems and services. After developing and maintaining the project under the Apache 2.0 license for many years, and donating it to the CNCF in 2018, Synadia announced last month its plan to withdraw the NATS server from the foundation and adopt the Business Source License (BUSL), a non-open source license. Derek Collison, creator of NATS.io and CEO of Synadia, wrote:

For the NATS ecosystem to flourish, Synadia must also thrive. This clarity has guided our decision-making and planning (...) Synadia’s customers, partners, and the broader NATS ecosystem derive tremendous value from the features and capabilities of the NATS server. Synadia and its predecessor company funded approximately 97% of the NATS server contributions.

While a discussion about the future of the project was taking place in the CNCF TOC repository, the foundation explained why the open source commitments and principles were under threat and disputed the ownership of the NATS trademark, sparking concerns about the future of the popular project. Foundation-backed open source software has traditionally offered greater stability than corporate-owned projects, making NATS' potential departure from CNCF a significant exception.

After a few days of discussions and updates, Synadia and the CNCF announced on May 1st that they had reached an agreement: Synadia would transfer the NATS trademark registrations to the Linux Foundation, without forking the project, while the CNCF would retain control over the project's infrastructure and assets. If Synadia chooses to fork the project for a proprietary offering in the future, it will have to do so under a new name.

In the article "OSS: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back," Stephen O'Grady, principal analyst and cofounder at RedMonk, writes:

The flareup starkly revealed traditional fault lines in the wider open source community around the role of foundations. For many, this situation provided an opportunity not to protest the alleged about face but rather to attack foundations generally and the CNCF specifically for their shortcomings, both perceived and real (...) Vendors that choose to donate projects to foundations do so understanding, or at least should, that donation is a one way door.

Discussing "NATS goes Nuts – Quite Unique Open Source controversy," Peter Zaitsev, founder of Percona and open source advocate, adds:

There’s a lesson here for the CNCF too. If it wants people to trust the projects it hosts, it needs to make sure situations like this don’t happen. That means locking down all the key assets -like trademarks and licensing rights- before fully accepting a project.

Discussing the future of Synadia and the NATS project after the agreement was reached, Collison explained how Synadia is now considering a commercial distribution that would embed the OSS NATS Server targeted for specific use cases, with the company still providing commercial support for the open source solution. O'Grady concludes:

The NATS storm was a black eye for open source broadly. Between the simmering antagonism towards foundations at scale, the direct attacks on the CNCF specifically and the revelations about NATS’ performance and Synadia’s alleged behaviors, it was not a great week for open source.

Seven years after joining the CNCF, NATS has yet to achieve "graduated" status and continues to operate under the "incubating" designation, one of the factors that contributed to the dispute.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com