- Someone at their company needs to do a deep-dive into the code and verify that there aren't licensed third-party libraries and possibly remove them. Even companies that genuinely want to open source software that they've acquired may spend a year doing this sort of due diligence.
Well, or they could release a patch that simply nerfs the license check on the binary. No risk in terms of lost profits, for software they no longer sell.
That assumes the (a) the source is still available (b) the build environment is still available and working, (c) a staff member is still available that understands the system and/or (d) the time to figure it out and rebuild, test, and create the binary diff/patch ....
Well, yeah. The point was that there are changes that could be made, without having to make it possible for everyone else to build, that would enable continued binary support.
- It's risk for them with basically no upside.
- Someone at their company needs to do a deep-dive into the code and verify that there aren't licensed third-party libraries and possibly remove them. Even companies that genuinely want to open source software that they've acquired may spend a year doing this sort of due diligence.