4 ms·

Sorry still do not understand. So you are saying that I screw over a person which uses n8n (else he would probably not contribute anyway), for whom I assume n8n

Sorry still do not understand. So you are saying that I screw over a person which uses n8n (else he would probably not contribute anyway), for whom I assume n8n is in some way helpful (so makes his life easier, saves him time, the company makes more money, ...), who can use all the code I wrote for free? And just because he contributed some code and I do not allow other people (which is in 99.999%, not the contributor) to make money directly with n8n?

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
I didn't say you screwed them over. I said you take their patch and use it to create value that you deny to the contributor. I'm not weaseling words here. Some contributors will be okay with that. But some won't be - and you're misleading them by telling them that it's open source when it's not. When something is called "open source", it's assumed to meet a certain criteria - the OSD - and can be used as a mental shortcut. When someone sees that your software is "open source", they'll probably believe you - but it's not. You're taking advantage of that.
- janober 7y ago
  Sorry english it not my native language. Thought that is kind of an OK short version of "asking for more of contributors than you give back to them". Did not want to weasel your words (hope I did at least use that correctly)! I tried (apparently not successfuly) to write everywhere very clearly that the Commons Clause got applied and if somebody contributes to it he would normally have spend some time with the project and he should be aware of the license situation. Would never have expected that somebody would find out later that it is not the case and he would then be upset about it. But thanks, not sure that it would happen but still one more thing for me to consider (as you are right that it could happen).

4 ms·

Sorry still do not understand. So you are saying that I screw over a person which uses n8n (else he would probably not contribute anyway), for whom I assume n8n

by janober 7y ago

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
I didn't say you screwed them over. I said you take their patch and use it to create value that you deny to the contributor. I'm not weaseling words here. Some contributors will be okay with that. But some won't be - and you're misleading them by telling them that it's open source when it's not. When something is called "open source", it's assumed to meet a certain criteria - the OSD - and can be used as a mental shortcut. When someone sees that your software is "open source", they'll probably believe you - but it's not. You're taking advantage of that.
- janober 7y ago
  Sorry english it not my native language. Thought that is kind of an OK short version of "asking for more of contributors than you give back to them". Did not want to weasel your words (hope I did at least use that correctly)! I tried (apparently not successfuly) to write everywhere very clearly that the Commons Clause got applied and if somebody contributes to it he would normally have spend some time with the project and he should be aware of the license situation. Would never have expected that somebody would find out later that it is not the case and he would then be upset about it. But thanks, not sure that it would happen but still one more thing for me to consider (as you are right that it could happen).