3 ms·
If 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.
by plorkyeran 4y ago
If 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.