3 ms·

I would say that a web server requires ongoing support to be viable. Any software that handles network interactions between potentially unknown parties is inher

I would say that a web server requires ongoing support to be viable. Any software that handles network interactions between potentially unknown parties is inherently in the crosshairs of bad actors. Once a vulnerability is found, it must be patched, or that software is no longer safe to use.

xaduha 11y ago
He says > There's no such thing as free software. That's a hyperbole. He also says > The question is, "Who pays the price?" Not everything is done for gain. When someone gives you an apple you're probably not that concerned about how it came to be, to you that apple is free. But there's also that added advantage of software - you can copy and share it just like that with the whole world.
- atonse 11y ago
  I don't think they're saying everything has to be for gain. But there is definitely the point about "who pays the price" – whether it's the opportunity cost of lost income from working on caddy, or other price (time with family, friends, etc). I do agree with patio11 that it's easier to just have a real support contract. IMO, one of the model open source projects is Sidekiq. It's become a very sustainable business for its author.
dingaling 11y ago
> I would say that a web server requires ongoing support to be viable. Absolutely and I think the author should have concentrated on that future-deliverables aspect rather than the 'what you owe to Caddy' argument. The latter is emotionally strong but logically frail; as the author himself points-out he depends on Go and Let's Encrypt ( amongst many other 'free' projects I'm sure ) so will he be making a 'what I owe to you' contribution upstream to all those projects? He won't have much money left after that let alone paying the voluntary cost of a Github Enterprise account, of course, because otherwise someone else is paying for his use of that service... Spinning the request as a support-contract for ongoing bug and security fixes would not only have been more business-friendly but also more robust as a general appeal.

xaduha 11y ago

He says > There's no such thing as free software. That's a hyperbole. He also says > The question is, "Who pays the price?" Not everything is done for gain. When someone gives you an apple you're probably not that concerned about how it came to be, to you that apple is free. But there's also that added advantage of software - you can copy and share it just like that with the whole world.

atonse 11y ago
I don't think they're saying everything has to be for gain. But there is definitely the point about "who pays the price" – whether it's the opportunity cost of lost income from working on caddy, or other price (time with family, friends, etc). I do agree with patio11 that it's easier to just have a real support contract. IMO, one of the model open source projects is Sidekiq. It's become a very sustainable business for its author.

dingaling 11y ago

> I would say that a web server requires ongoing support to be viable. Absolutely and I think the author should have concentrated on that future-deliverables aspect rather than the 'what you owe to Caddy' argument. The latter is emotionally strong but logically frail; as the author himself points-out he depends on Go and Let's Encrypt ( amongst many other 'free' projects I'm sure ) so will he be making a 'what I owe to you' contribution upstream to all those projects? He won't have much money left after that let alone paying the voluntary cost of a Github Enterprise account, of course, because otherwise someone else is paying for his use of that service... Spinning the request as a support-contract for ongoing bug and security fixes would not only have been more business-friendly but also more robust as a general appeal.