3 ms·
> Let's face it: They realized their product was popular, took advantage of tons of interest and documentation/blogs/hype in the community, then decided to char
by pheeney 9y ago
> Let's face it: They realized their product was popular, took advantage of tons of interest and documentation/blogs/hype in the community, then decided to charge for binary distribution. It's a bit of a burn.
Or another way of looking at it: Open source has to be subsidized (either through free time or commercial backing) in order to continue to contribute to open source. The amount of time and effort to maintain a popular open source product is insane. They are creating a business model to continue to subsidize their open source contributions. Whats the alternative? Burnout and stagnation which would just result in forks and fracturing of the community if they are lucky.
- throwa34943way 9y ago> Open source has to be subsidized Yep and Caddy was, $50.000 in 2016 from Mozilla https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-385000-to-open-source-projects-as-part-of-moss-mission-partners-program/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850...
- always_good 9y agoYou say that like you think they're set for life...
- throwa34943way 9y agoAll I say is Mozilla granting $50.000 on the premise of a project being free software is a lot of money given to a commercial product.
- pheeney 9y agoThey are still open source right? Or does having a commercial version invalidate what they have open sourced?