6 ms·
Your comment does not qualify "need to pay", which is only required for commercial users. If Caddy is as unpopular as HN makes it look, then that's probably no
by mholt 8y ago
Your comment does not qualify "need to pay", which is only required for commercial users.
If Caddy is as unpopular as HN makes it look, then that's probably nobody. Right?
- TAForObvReasons 8y agoJust to be clear: it seems that the same exact binaries distributed via a docker image or through standard distro packages managers are free for commercial use. The difference is that obtaining it from you directly costs money. This is a part of the business model that HN users would likely find distasteful. You're charging people who aren't technically competent enough to realize that other places offer the same exact binaries for free. Why even permit the side channels in the first place?
- mholt 8y agoThat's also an incorrect characterization. Those 3rd-party channels do not give you the power to customize Caddy the way our build infrastructure does. Try customizing Caddy with plugins through apt or DO images and let us know if you find a way to do that!
- gtirloni 8y agoI understand other projects have similar compilation requirements but now you're just spinning a technical difficulty as a feature. The fact people are still having trouble understanding your licensing terms should give you pause.