They don't. They can fork the "apache v2" version and start adding non apache v2 code given they are the primary contributor. If they own the trademark, they can call the new forked version "matrix".
What non having copy right assignment means is that they can't change the license of existing stuff. But they can change the license of future stuff using existing apache v2 licensed code which is permitted.
Everyone who thinks that because Matrix is Apache v2 license, it will remain permissive open source is ignoring the reality of an active project. If Matrix changes license tomorrow, the old code will still be Apache v2. But are you going to fork the project to keep it Apache v2?
For some data point, look at recent relicense of MinIO, Grafana, Loki, Vector.dev etc.
Thanks for the detailed response. In that regard, it is like Kong. What is the difference between Kong vs Gloo? Kong is based on nginx which is rock solid.
- Don't be a solo founder, no body is going to fund you. Your idea may be crappy, you can pivot. But solo founder is a big no no, unless you are successful founder with a new venture.
- Either you or your co-founder is "the" person in your product area or you are able to hire someone who is. Developer tools companies always try to do this to become #1 (at least in twitter).
- You probably should make a new database or a security tool if you are in the B2B space. Otherwise you will have a very hard time making money.
What non having copy right assignment means is that they can't change the license of existing stuff. But they can change the license of future stuff using existing apache v2 licensed code which is permitted.