To “protect PSF” may be, but such is not the concern - the issue at hand is, that users and maintainers do not seem to be protected at all, and that pre-existing protections are removed from them, by the change.
I would vehemently contest that claim, this is, in my opinion, clearly wrong.
If a termination clause is not present, it defaults to norms of the jurisdiction and/or precendent in case of common law systems like the US one. So, some protections will be afforded to users and developers under the old T&C, compared to the total absence of such barriers in the new T&C.
I do also have some further questions, including “who decided” (which was not answered so far), let me concretize:
- when was this change of T&C decided and by whom?
- are there minutes or other documents of the decision?
- is there a clear legal assessment on whether moving to a paid service model jeopardizes the 501(c) US non-profit status?
- does or did the aforementioned decision require a vote by the meeting of members?