3 ms·
This has an interesting aspect to it. Yes, it's AGPL with source code publicly available, but if you remove that license key check yourself, you have to make i
by rdpintqogeogsaa 5y ago
This has an interesting aspect to it.
Yes, it's AGPL with source code publicly available, but if you remove that license key check yourself, you have to make it public, effectively broadcasting that you don't pay for software. In a way, it's naming and shaming. The alternative is using the fork of someone else who has done so and complied with the license, but then you're suddenly dependent on some random downstream and who knows what else they have mixed or might mix into it or just give up merging from upstream eventually.
- josephcsible 5y agoWhy would that be shameful? Putting an antifeature in software is shameful, but taking it out is virtuous.
- wongarsu 5y agoGoing out of your way to avoid supporting software you use commercially isn't virtuous
- ttiurani 5y ago> if you remove that license key check yourself, you have to make it public... ...for the users of the modified software, not everyone. If the only user is you, having the source code on your own machine is enough.