Yep, that is how open source works. Note the 'source' there? Anyone is free to charge for compiled binaries. If this compilation has added bonuses (e.g. including plugins) that gives people a reason to pay for that compilation. In any case, those that don't like it can just compile the project themselves.
What exactly do you think was misleading about this move?
Yep, anyone is free to charge whatever amount for whatever service/feature they offer. But apparently, in this case, the backlash against Caddy's move is greater than the willingness to pay for the service rendered (building binaries without the sponsor header).
Matt's post, and a lot of comments here on HN defending Matt, are missing the point: yes, there was vitriol, and yes, people reacted in a way that was disproportional to the announced changes, but in the end the most important take-away is that people are _not_ willing to pay for the product and are angry because of the changes and the way they were handled. This will cost Caddy a lot of business. Period.
In my opinion Matt should have done one of two things:
- Own up to his mistake (if he agrees it's a mistake)
- Stand by his choices, grow a pair, and laugh at the community for their silliness
What he did instead, is play the victim. He's not a victim. He tries to run a business. That alone will always alienate people. Deal with it!
Matt cannot pay his bills with them.
The underlying message is "shut up and deal with it," which is also unhelpful. People can feel how they feel, and there is no shame in expressing those feelings in a productive way.
What he is not however, he is not doormat that would pretend to laugh when being lied about, when his oss credentials are attacked, etc. Neither he is refraiming what he considers "vitriol" as "silly community". The two expressions have two different meanings. You may disagree about characterisation, of course, but it seems that you don't. You just want him not to talk about it.
Demanding that he pretends issues are what he does not considers them to be is to demand he becomes a coward and poisons the community with feel good lies.
A hypothetical -- but certainly possible -- scenario: $distro (e.g. Debian, RHEL, Ubuntu) takes the Caddy source, removes the controversial header, builds a binary package, and distributes it as "caddy" via their standard repositories. Light Code Labs doesn't approve of this and asks/demands that $distro stop using the trademark. $distro now has to make a choice: remove the "unapproved" changes from their package, stop distributing their package, or rebrand the software under a different name.
(That potentially could have happened here [2,3] but it was quickly resolved well before it got to that point.)
I don't think "it doesn't" is correct -- at least not for 100% of cases.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_b...
[1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622
OSS is just that : a promise that users may modify the software to their heart's content. They didn't break that promise at all. Care to share why you hold your view ?
That being the case do we really think it's justified to roast them over it? Do we really think it's OK to make unpleasant accusations about them? To character-assassinate them? To drag their names through the mud and hurl insults at them?
I don't think so.
My suspicion is that all you know about these people is what you've read about them on the internet (granted: some of it will have been written by them), but the internet is a notoriously fickle and inaccurate source.
I seriously doubt they've "deliberately misled" anyone.
I can't really be held accountable for people jumping the gun and commenting before they're informed.
And you're right. You can't be held accountable for people jumping the gun. Regardless of how they comment or their lack of preparedness, you are responsible for how you yourself respond. And part of that is hopefully to assist when people are uninformed.
Thanks again for the link!
To your point that there's no indication that the project is open source: there are at least two links to the GitHub project on the homepage.
And as for the trademark removal from forks, that's sort of fair enough.
They're not "mining for sympathy": they've clarified their position and taken responsibility for handling the situation poorly.
Maybe stop interpreting everything you read in the worst possible light?
You may not owe your users anything, but guess what: they don't owe you anything either. That's how open source works.