opensores11

Hey David,

I don't think your company did anything wrong. The CDN is hard codes into the library as far as I can tell.

Ultimately there are two separate issues.

1. The CDN thing, of course.

2. The open source monetization never ending problem.

The first can be fixed with a simple change to the library. The second your company is already trying to help in part. Ultimately open source is not easily monetizable...

See the Fair Source License, which has a limit up to X users. There is also a Polyform Small Business license I think, which is similar.

For simple create-and-forget or true community-focused serverside software, I no longer see any reason for using anything other than AGPL.

For serverside software I want to monetize (so maintaining the software is sustainable, and so I can support myself) I'm increasingly leaning towards things like the Business Source License. I like that it allows pretty much everything e.g. Apache 2 does without allowing other companies to just rob me of my monetization strategy. Yes, it is not open source. But it allows others to self host my software and paves a way for the software to be _eventually_ open source.

Honestly, it's time for people to realize that companies are the primary beneficiaries of open source, for server side software, and react accordingly. For me, software is about allowing others see my code and use it for their own purposes. I don't make software so for profit companies can screw me over.

The idealism of open source in the server side space only serves large corporations. Go extreme copy left or go source-available or enjoy working for free.