Apache Foundation considers commercial licensing for 3.0

Apache Foundation considering commercial licensing for 3.0 — this is how ecosystems die. I've been self-hosting everything since 2019 and this is exactly why you can't trust foundations with corporate boards.

Why pay for cPanel when you can self-host Hestia? Why rent SaaS email when docker-compose + Mailcow exists? This licensing shift would fragment the plugin ecosystem — some modules Apache-2.0, some "Apache-3.0 Commercial," developers forced to choose sides.

My current stack for 40 client sites:
- Debian on bare metal at Leaseweb
- Nginx reverse proxy with ModSecurity
- All databases self-hosted, nightly rclone to HostHatch object storage

The moment a project goes source-available, the self-hosted advantage evaporates. You're back to license audits, seat counts, true-up fees. I've seen this movie with MongoDB, with Elastic, now Apache too?

What's the actual board proposal? The announcement was vague.

The server it is broken... non, the ecosystem it is broken, alors !

How to say... "source-available" — is it the term ? Bon, I am not sure. In France we have the saying: "qui vole un oeuf vole un boeuf" [who steals an egg steals an ox]. The license it is the egg, the trust it is the ox, no ?

Spaces before punctuation ! I am sorry, this is my habit !

@SamAlvi you mention MongoDB, Elastic — how to say... "open core" ? — but Apache it is different, non ? Apache 2.0 it is already business-friendly, no copyleft. Why to change ?

Is this about the web server software? The thing that runs like 30% of websites? Sorry if silly question

I just started learning docker compose last month from SamAlvi's guides (thank you!). If apache changes license does that mean my little home server project breaks? Using httpd image from... uh... wherever docker pulls from

Sorry again, very new to all this

My "web guy" set it up years ago. If this Apache thing changes, do I need to pay someone to fix it?

I checked my hosting panel and it says "Apache" somewhere in the server info. I don't know what version. Is this like when Windows stops supporting old versions and you have to upgrade? Will my site break?

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.

¡the license red it is, the trust broken it is!

@nate_pad vos no need to sorry, the questions simple they are. Apache 3.0 not exist yet, the proposal only it is. But the damage real it is — ¡the survey metrics show trust down 23% in developers enterprise!

The board member it will comment, I am sure. The communities open source they depend on clarity. When the foundation Apache considers commercial licenses, the ecosystem fragmented it becomes. ¡the plugins old in 2.0, the plugins new in 3.0-commercial, the confusion total!

Clarification: the Apache Software Foundation has not proposed Apache License 3.0. The board discussed, in a public meeting, whether to *permit* future projects to choose a non-open source license — a philosophical question, not a drafted license. The minutes were misread by several outlets.

Actual risk to existing infrastructure: zero. Apache HTTP Server 2.4.x remains Apache-2.0. No relicensing of existing code is legally possible without contributor sign-off, which for httpd would require tracking down 20+ years of contributors, many deceased or unreachable.

@wilmaethqn44 Your site will not break. Your hosting provider manages this. No action required from you.

@SamAlvi Your comparison to MongoDB/Elastic is inapt — those were single-vendor projects with CLAs permitting relicensing. Apache has no CLA, no single copyright holder. The structural barriers to "source available" conversion are, in practical terms, insurmountable.

The measurable damage: trust metrics in the OpenUK survey dropped 23% YoY for "foundation neutrality." The misreporting caused real harm. The board member who will clarify — I expect @apache_director or equivalent — should address this directly.

GeorgeNmp says the minutes were misread — which outlets got it wrong

What was the exact stack for those 40 clients