4 ms·
It isn't, because as long as the price for a direct license is reasonable, companies will pay it just to have the paperwork. SQLite is public domain, and makes
by tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
It isn't, because as long as the price for a direct license is reasonable, companies will pay it just to have the paperwork.
SQLite is public domain, and makes money by selling "licenses" to such companies (they're called something else, but it allows the company buying it to file it in their "licenses" folder and tick a checkbox; https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html).
- modeless 4y agoThat doesn't make this license not stupid. Sure, SQLite sells licenses, there's nothing wrong with that, ImageSharp is welcome to do it too! But you'll notice that SQLite doesn't have a license like this one...
- justin66 4y agoSQLite is also the most widely used open source library, or close to it, in the entire world. They can get by with a miniscule portion of one percent of users paying for a license.
- plorkyeran 4y agoIf the intent is for it to be Apache 2.0 with a completely optional paid license, you can just do that without a convoluted licensing scheme.
- int_19h 4y agoThat is exactly what they did originally, and it did not produce enough paid customers.
- TillE 4y agoThat's unfortunate, but will the license change actually solve that? Are a lot of companies going to pay an annual license for a .NET image library? In the longer term, I'm guessing this pushes everyone pretty strongly towards SkiaSharp instead.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- no_wizard 4y agoI think they make most of their money from the support contracts they sell, if I recall correctly. I think nearly every major company has one for instance and they’re pretty pricey