4 ms·
Well, basically they only want to give it away for free, if you actually cannot pay for it. That seems reasonable. But I agree, an OS alternative would be great
by mnx 9y ago
Well, basically they only want to give it away for free, if you actually cannot pay for it. That seems reasonable. But I agree, an OS alternative would be great, and this seems like it could be it.
- scrollaway 9y agoYeah, I understand the logic behind the licensing. However, under the guise of promoting open source, what this actually does is it promotes giving your work away for free and discourages making money with open source products. As a huge proponent of open source myself, I have no problem with projects that are open source and make money; anything that isn't "hobbyist level" should be able to make money, and if you want to make money your mindset shouldn't fall back on going closed source. Huge shout out to Sentry in that matter: They are open source, and if you're open source they service you for free. https://sentry.io/for/open-source/ https://sentry.io/for/open-source/ -- Comparatively, DataGrip is closed source, and they only give you a free license if you can't make money. Very different mindset...
- mnx 9y agoI get your point, but also... You are complaining that they are not willing to give their work away, unless you are willing to give your work away.
- scrollaway 9y agoBut it's not symmetrical like that: DataGrip isn't open source. It's not so much a complaint (they're within their rights), I just find it uneasy to ask people to forego revenue. I feel it sends the wrong message and promotes the wrong mindset.