I think the community feedback request here is really important, especially since licensing changes can significantly impact adoption and contribution patterns.
A few things worth considering in this discussion:
Clarity on use cases: The existing license has enabled a lot of smaller projects and agencies to build on Directus without friction. If there’s a revision, it’d be helpful to understand which specific scenarios the new terms are targeting. Are there particular commercial models that prompted this, or is it more about protecting the core project long-term.
Migration path concerns: If this affects existing implementations, there should be a clear grace period and communication timeline. I’ve seen other projects handle this poorly, and it creates unnecessary friction with their user base. Transparency about “what changes, when, and for whom” prevents a lot of goodwill damage.
Fork and contribution incentives: Open source projects live or die based on community contributions. Make sure any licensing revision doesn’t accidentally create perverse incentives that push maintainers toward forking or reduce contributions from smaller shops who can’t afford legal review.
Dual licensing option: Have the maintainers considered a dual licensing approach if commercial restrictions are the goal. That’s been effective for projects like Qt and Elasticsearch—lets different user segments coexist without everyone being locked into one model.
I’d genuinely like to see what the proposed changes actually are before forming a stronger opinion. Posting the draft text (even if rough) would probably generate more constructive feedback than abstract discussion about licensing philosophy.