Re:Low-code development (Node-RED alternative)
by js4ever on Monday March 06, 2023 @04:55PM
(#35048240)
It's very valid to sell premium blocks/packs. It's really amazing to have all the rest in the MIT version open-core. Thanks for that and don't be demoralized by some comments, we don't all think the same.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Low-code development (Node-RED alternative)
by petersirka on Monday March 06, 2023 @05:21PM
(#35048580)
Thank you a lot!
Re:Low-code development (Node-RED alternative)
by sneak on Tuesday March 07, 2023 @12:50AM
(#35052043)
Licensing only part of your software under free software licenses is a clear statement that you do not believe in software freedoms for users.
A proprietary software house that releases some free software is still a proprietary software operation.
Re:Low-code development (Node-RED alternative)
by tluyben2 on Tuesday March 07, 2023 @01:41AM
(#35052316)
Somewhere else in this thread I asked for the list of licenses as I see most of these products keep the parts with the most work closed or under a license that many companies won’t touch (agpl or n2n license). It seems that almost everything is MIT; that is pretty refreshing for something like this. Check alternative solutions and you’ll find trivial parts open sourced and the hard parts proprietary or unusable in other software because of the license choice.
Kudos to the team of total.js. Who cares if they offer some paid stuff; because of the MIT license anyone can. If they don’t do it, someone else can and offer it all the same. As long as vital parts remain MIT, I cannot see how this is a proprietary software operation.