I mean I’m sure they’d like to just ship safe code in the first place. But if that’s not their expertise and they demonstrate that repeatedly, we gotta take steps ourselves. Secure is obviously best, but I’d rather have insecure Jellyfin behind a VPN than no Jellyfin at all.

True, but unless that new group is willing to step up and invest in physical device production to directly compete, I don’t think it’s going to be the same. The type of people buying a dedicated NAS with a custom OS are looking for as close to a plug and play solution ad they can get. They’re less inclined to reinstall the OS on their new NAS, and the market is probably going to favor the now proprietary version TrueNAS sells, especially if they take steps to make it difficult to replace the OS on their devices.

Yeah, no, they couldn’t do it to the kernel. But that’s not really the interesting part of their product. It’s all the software that they as a company hold the copyright to. If they solely hold copyright on all their own code or if they have permission to relicense from their contributors, they can take any or all of their products closed source, and when I say “their products” I specifically mean the things they as a company produce, which they built on top of open source projects that they don’t control.

This probably doesn’t apply to TrueNAS, but technically, it’s possible to close a GPL project. You’d need the permission of every last contributor to relicense their code, or they’d have to rewrite all the code they can’t get relicensed (e.g., someone said no or already died), or they could do it if they never accepted any pull requests because they would then be the sole copyright holder and have the freedom to relicense at their whim.

I can’t vouch for TrueNAS, but most open source projects accept pull requests because free labor, whether they’re corporate projects or not, so I’d assume they can’t freely relicense without a hell of a headache, so yeah, it’s probably staying open for the foreseeable future.