Good for you! This of course doesn't help in the situation where a dependency author retroactively changes the licensing state of a component, or reconfigures the project to rely on a new external dependency with differing license states (experienced both of these too!).

Having the landing page explain the motivations of the authors vis-a-vis open source goes a long way to providing the context for whatever licensing is appearing in the source repos, and helps understand what the future steer for the project is likely to be.

There are loads of ostensibly open source projects out there whose real goal is to drive sales of associated software and services, often without which the value of the opensource components is reduced, especially in the developer tooling space.

> Good for you! This of course doesn't help in the situation where a dependency author retroactively changes the licensing state of a component, or reconfigures the project to rely on a new external dependency with differing license states (experienced both of these too!).

No, but I also don't see why that matters a lot. Once you adopted a third party project as a dependency, you also implicitly sign up to whatever changes they do, or you get prepared for staying on a static version with only security fixes you apply yourself. This isn't exactly new problems nor rocket science, we've been dealing with these sort of things for decades already.

> There are loads of ostensibly open source projects out there whose real goal is to drive sales of associated software and services, often without which the value of the opensource components is reduced, especially in the developer tooling space.

Yeah, which is kind of terrible, but also kind of great. But in the end, ends up being fairly easy to detect one way or another, with the biggest and reddest signal being VC funded with no public pricing.