Re:Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses
by pheeney on Wednesday September 13, 2017 @06:07PM
(#15243181)
> Let's face it: They realized their product was popular, took advantage of tons of interest and documentation/blogs/hype in the community, then decided to charge for binary distribution. It's a bit of a burn.
Or another way of looking at it: Open source has to be subsidized (either through free time or commercial backing) in order to continue to contribute to open source. The amount of time and effort to maintain a popular open source product is insane. They are creating a business model to continue to subsidize their open source contributions. Whats the alternative? Burnout and stagnation which would just result in forks and fracturing of the community if they are lucky.
Re:Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses
by throwa34943way on Wednesday September 13, 2017 @08:09PM
(#15243909)
> Open source has to be subsidized
Yep and Caddy was, $50.000 in 2016 from Mozilla
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850...
Re:Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses
by always_good on Wednesday September 13, 2017 @09:52PM
(#15244428)
You say that like you think they're set for life...
Re:Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses
by throwa34943way on Wednesday September 13, 2017 @10:17PM
(#15244536)
All I say is Mozilla granting $50.000 on the premise of a project being free software is a lot of money given to a commercial product.
Re:Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses
by pheeney on Thursday September 14, 2017 @03:48PM
(#15251873)
They are still open source right? Or does having a commercial version invalidate what they have open sourced?
Re:Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses
by pushcx on Wednesday September 13, 2017 @06:28PM
(#15243329)
Yes, he gave you free stuff and then reduced how much free stuff he gave you. That must be very hard on you.
Re:Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses
by unethical_ban on Wednesday September 13, 2017 @09:16PM
(#15244238)
Your comment might have had value if you hadn't been sarcastic.
If they rephrased it to admit they're moving to a Red Hat model of "pay for binary", the news would have fared better. More straightforward, with a direct comparison to a current, successful brand.
Let's face it: They realized their product was popular, took advantage of tons of interest and documentation/blogs/hype in the community, then decided to charge for binary distribution. It's a bit of a burn.