8 ms·

Thanks for your feedback. I'd like to know more. > The fact that the headers aren't seen by most non-technical users is moot. Why's that? (And even among your

• StavrosK 9y ago
  > And even among your technical visitors, how many of them actually inspect the response headers? I find that a bit disingenuous. You can't both include annoying headers and argue that they aren't annoying anyone because nobody will see them. If nobody will see them, why add them in the first place?
  • andkenneth 9y ago
    I think the headers are there so they can see if commercial sites are using the personal version and get them to pony up.
    • nopzor 9y ago
      Wouldn't they already know who their customers are?
    • jayrox 9y ago
      commercial sites have the easy ability to go to https://github.com/mholt/caddy; https://github.com/mholt/caddy; download the source; remove the header from header.go and server.go; compile; run i'd venture to guess many build the binary themselves already. so they can add their own tweaks. how would anyone be able to prove a website is being ran by caddy if the server doesn't announce that it is caddy?
      • detaro 9y ago
        If you do build it yourself, you don't fall under the commercial license, so it's correct if those are not detected.
  • underyx 9y ago
    It's enough if nobody but the site maintainers will see them, that's what can annoy them into upgrading.
  • bauerd 9y ago
    To give commercial users an incentive to pay for the open source software they use. Can you name an open source project that does not offer extended features for commercial versions and that sells? Because I can't
    • StavrosK 9y ago
      Ad headers isn't an extended feature, it's a nag screen.
      • bauerd 9y ago
        Removal of ad headers surely counts as a feature then?
        • StavrosK 9y ago
          No, it counts as a bugfix.
    • TAForObvReasons 9y ago
      There's a difference between "extended features for commercial versions" and "adware". Usually the open source version includes core features that solve a basic set of problems, and the commercial versions add additional features to solve other and/or larger problems. At no point is there an explicit crippling of the open source. What's particularly frustrating is the burying of the lede here. The summary of the page intentionally omits the fact that you can build from source and use it in commercial contexts. And the section discussing the Apache license is factually incorrect: "Remember that building Caddy from source is still subject to the Apache 2.0 license which requires attribution and stating changes." -- that is only true if you are selling on-prem software that ships with the program. If you are using it in the normal course of your SaaS, no attribution is required.
      • StavrosK 9y ago
        Exactly. I would have no issue if paid usage was for things big companies are more likely to need, e.g. support, high-performance features, etc, like nginx does, but this is egregious.
  • mholt 9y ago
    I know devs who use Sublime Text almost indefinitely without paying. They don't mind the little "Hey don't forget to buy" popup every once in a while. We aren't putting popups on your site. :P
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • tylersmith 9y ago
      No, you're injecting data into traffic. That's way worse than a text editor occasionally reminding you you haven't paid.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • kbenson 9y ago
        Really? I don't see it as any different than an unregistered document editor saving "created with an unregistered version of X" in the comment section of saved documents that it edits. Stuff like that has been going on for decades.
        • kelnos 9y ago
          Sure. Some people are fine with using free-as-in-beer software if the "cost" of that is the maker gets some free advertising. Some people -- like many in this thread -- are not ok with that. Both positions are perfectly valid.
• lol768 9y ago
  > Why's that? (And even among your technical visitors, how many of them actually inspect the response headers?) I dislike this for a few reasons. Firstly, it honestly comes across as petty. I'm using the server for personal reasons, it's for a non-commercial site which I don't make money off. I don't display ads, and suddenly I'm now being forced to serve ads to my visitors. The medium of delivery is utterly irrelevant to me. Secondly, it makes it more difficult to take steps to make it less obvious which web server is being used. I'd do this to make it slightly more difficult for script kiddies looking to exploit recent vulnerabiltiies - not because I think security through obscurity is a good idea. > It's good to know that price isn't the bottleneck, then. Does it make any difference to know that commercially-licensed Caddy builds don't have that header? No. The point is, you've annoyed someone who liked your software, used it for personal use (costing you nothing) and would've happily recommended it to colleagues.
  • JosephLark 9y ago
    > No. The point is, you've annoyed someone who liked your software, used it for personal use (costing you nothing) and would've happily recommended it to colleagues. This is worth keeping in mind. Personally, this change is putting me off Caddy to the point that I might stop using it for personal sites. The big feature for me - instant LetsEncrypt TLS certificates - can be done on other servers now fairly simply. So the end result might be that I no longer use Caddy, which means I'll no longer have it in mind for commercial projects I work on.
    • djsumdog 9y ago
      I have pretty much the same reaction. I was considering moving some stuff to Caddy, but looking at this, I'd need to create my own build pipeline to keep rubbish like this out. No thanks. I'll use tools that give me the options of turning things like this on/off without having to compile my own copy.
    • tylersmith 9y ago
      I was pleasantly surprised at how quickly I was able to rip out Caddy and replace it with nginx and Traefik (in different cases), even with the LE automation. It shouldn't be much of a burden to move your person projects I don't think.
• Bjartr 9y ago
  What if, instead of adding headers, you did something more like mobaxterm where there are games that can only be removed by paying for the commercial version. Like all personal caddy servers respond to /nethack?
• Touche 9y ago
  Hi mholt, I have used Caddy almost since you started it. Great product! My issue with this is that there isn't an affordable license for small non-profit websites (like a person's personal website). I'd gladly pay if it were affordable, but it is not. So now I have to choose between incurring the wasted bandwidth of this header to my users, or choosing a different web server.
  • mholt 9y ago
    Thanks for your feedback. You could build from source, that's free. If you need a commercial license, contact us at sales@lightcodelabs.com and we'll see about working something out for you!
    • derefr 9y ago
      Even the time required to negotiate a custom commercial license costs more than the license is worth (and/or more than the switching cost) for most personal users. I was using Caddy because I don't have time in my day to configure Nginx; but I also don't have time in my day to build Caddy from source to repackage+deploy it to my infrastructure. So back to Nginx it is. What I would have time in my day for is a standardized one-time PayPal payment in exchange for a commercial license authorizing me to use Caddy for a site with traffic not exceeding [X amt any commercial site would quickly hit]. You know, like buying an SMB license of any other on-prem web-service software.
      • jimjimjim 9y ago
        you don't have time to recompile a software package but you do have time to read hackernews? is time the right word here?
        • derefr 9y ago
          My job pays me units of money in exchange for a finite time per day spent dedicated to advancing their goals. There are more potential things to do for the company than fit into the time they pay me to spend; and I'm not going to work for free past that time just to fit all those things in. Therefore, I have to optimize—to choose which things are most worth the company's time. Compiling and configuring software packages are rather low on that list (which shouldn't be surprising, given that I'm a programmer, not an ops person.) I read HN on my own time.
• AndrewCHM 9y ago
  peronally, while totally leaving my life unaffected, it'd be one of those thoughts in the back of my head, both knowing that there is some random text being output (need to optimize everything!), and that there is something intentionally uncontrollable there, and to a lesser degree, something there to intentionally bother me. Can I ask who came up with the idea, and what other alternatives were discussed? Was this requested by the sponsors? edit: as a further question, if this results in a fork (well, I guess thats a bit late but) or an increase in the number of from-source builds, would you seek to make those two options more difficult? (e.g. legal pressure, or mangling the codebase in some way with hard to acquire dependencies)
• tylersmith 9y ago
  I think the biggest issue is that you've shown you're willing to modify traffic for license control. If you'd simply released commercial support for $500/mo/instance I'd have gladly paid for it in my products and think many others would have too. Showing such obtrusive forms of DRM makes me not want to ever use any of your software again. I've spent the past couple of hours migrating from Caddy to nginx and I've contacted them about buying support. I guess the silver lining was the nginx was was easy to migrate to.
• mst 9y ago
  I've dealt with similar-ish situations before and would suggest that you consider (I am not recommending, merely suggesting) adding a config option - thanks_sponsors false then people who really hate that header can disable it but it's clear what they're doing with the software they're paying no money for. If people complain about that well, that's their issue IMO. And they have to be explicit about how they're behaving. This has worked well for me in the past. If you'd be interested chatting about how/why reply and I'll drop you an email.
• CodeWriter23 9y ago
  Personally, I prefer viewing HTTP headers in the comfort and privacy of my Secret Mountain Laboratory, with my fluffy cat on my lap, usually in the middle of the night, and often in complete silence. That Caddy has chosen to interrupt what to me is a sacred space with advertisements, while burning additional bandwidth, all day every day, for no good reason at all because only weirdos like me are going to see it is beyond obnoxious. In my view if this doesn't cross the line into being antisocial, then it walks right up to that line. Do what you want with your code, and due to the MIT license, so will the rest of the Internet. And PS using a Trademark in a product comparison is covered by fair use. You all really should familiarize yourselves with the Streisand Effect and fundamentals of public relations.