alt Hacker NewsYou shouldn't look a gift horse in its mouth. Anything being open-source does not entitle you to be able to easily run it yourself. You are given the source as-is with no warranty. It is up to you to be competent enough to do anything with it and not the responsibility of the authors of the code.
If this doesn't suit you (as in, if this is a project you can't run, let alone maintain yourself), then you should consider paying someone (preferably the authors) to do so. I know this is novel to many people here who are used to exploiting the free labour of open-source maintainers, but it's been a decider in tech choices I make lately.
'Can I/anyone else at the company debug an issue and create a bugfix for this cool new open-source tech I want to introduce?' If no, then we are not qualified to run it without external help.
Well I disagree. My take: they wanted their cake and to eat it too. They wanted to be able to say they were free/open source, but really didn't want anyone to be able to utilize the code in any meaningful way. The hobbyist will be turned off because it doesn't look like there is any way to even try it out themselves on their own VPS or hardware. That seems intentional. And now, they change their license so that anyone smart enough to figure it out and make money with it, they not gonna allow that either now. Feels like we know how they really felt from the start, which is they didn't really want anyone to run this code on their own to begin with, but they wanted to still be able to claim "fully open source." IMO, even “disingenuous” is actually a somewhat kind word to how they come off to me.