I don’t understand this logic. The acquisition doesn’t guarantee the project dies and staying unacquired doesn’t guarantee the project continues.
The state of OSS funding is precarious. The acquisitions at least guarantee some runway for the maintainers. Maybe the acquirer has alternative intentions than to simply bankroll the project’s the way it was, but at least someone is paying to keep the maintainers fed.
After having worked in the JavaScript ecosystem for over a decade, I don’t think _any_ project of significant size is guaranteed to last or have support. We need to be thinking about resilience (_when_ the framework stops being supported), not pretending like using OSS projects without paying them should magically give you some support contract/assurances.
The state of OSS funding is precarious. The acquisitions at least guarantee some runway for the maintainers. Maybe the acquirer has alternative intentions than to simply bankroll the project’s the way it was, but at least someone is paying to keep the maintainers fed.
After having worked in the JavaScript ecosystem for over a decade, I don’t think _any_ project of significant size is guaranteed to last or have support. We need to be thinking about resilience (_when_ the framework stops being supported), not pretending like using OSS projects without paying them should magically give you some support contract/assurances.