4 ms·
Since it's opensource you can change the code (remove the restriction, and release a 1to1 fork/patch without restriction), and this is why it make no sense to i
by nix23 5y ago
Since it's opensource you can change the code (remove the restriction, and release a 1to1 fork/patch without restriction), and this is why it make no sense to implement such a restriction in the first place.
And this is why NO OTHER A/GPL project does that, understood?
- jagger27 5y agoThe reason could be as simple as to add just enough friction to nudge people towards a paid support plan. We agree that it's a silly way to create a value add, and we both agree that it's unenforceable because of the choice to license under (A)GPL. You're being needlessly hostile and made vague claims about whether or not something like this even allowed under GPL. You haven't demonstrated that this isn't allowed, and that's all I was pointing out. Understood?
- nix23 5y agoI still wait for an example which other A/GPL project thinks that's a good idea or even implements such a restriction...understood?
- jagger27 5y agoAre you serious? Where did I say this was a good idea? As for an example, I don’t know, Red Hat Enterprise Linux? They charge $349 with no support for a single license.