3 ms·

> Premium components Mmmm. Guarantees I'll never touch this.

petersirka 4y ago
We did a ton of free components and apps, and we have been doing it for 10 years. - More than 10 apps - The number of UI components exceeds 300 - The number of flow components exceeds 100 - More than 60 components in UI Builder Internally, we have 9 people in full-time employment, they need salary. As a result, we would like to sell some premium components in order to earn money for the next development, but that's a terrible idea according to you. Yeahh, you are really crazy!
- js4ever 4y ago
  It's very valid to sell premium blocks/packs. It's really amazing to have all the rest in the MIT version open-core. Thanks for that and don't be demoralized by some comments, we don't all think the same.
  - petersirka 4y ago
    Thank you a lot!
  - sneak 4y ago
    Licensing only part of your software under free software licenses is a clear statement that you do not believe in software freedoms for users. A proprietary software house that releases some free software is still a proprietary software operation.
    - tluyben2 4y ago
      Somewhere else in this thread I asked for the list of licenses as I see most of these products keep the parts with the most work closed or under a license that many companies won’t touch (agpl or n2n license). It seems that almost everything is MIT; that is pretty refreshing for something like this. Check alternative solutions and you’ll find trivial parts open sourced and the hard parts proprietary or unusable in other software because of the license choice. Kudos to the team of total.js. Who cares if they offer some paid stuff; because of the MIT license anyone can. If they don’t do it, someone else can and offer it all the same. As long as vital parts remain MIT, I cannot see how this is a proprietary software operation. Tl;dr I agree with you, but I don’t see that being the case here
RobotToaster 4y ago
Some of the choices of what to make premium seem weird too, like zigbee MQTT.

We did a ton of free components and apps, and we have been doing it for 10 years. - More than 10 apps - The number of UI components exceeds 300 - The number of flow components exceeds 100 - More than 60 components in UI Builder Internally, we have 9 people in full-time employment, they need salary. As a result, we would like to sell some premium components in order to earn money for the next development, but that's a terrible idea according to you. Yeahh, you are really crazy!

js4ever 4y ago
It's very valid to sell premium blocks/packs. It's really amazing to have all the rest in the MIT version open-core. Thanks for that and don't be demoralized by some comments, we don't all think the same.
- petersirka 4y ago
  Thank you a lot!
- sneak 4y ago
  Licensing only part of your software under free software licenses is a clear statement that you do not believe in software freedoms for users. A proprietary software house that releases some free software is still a proprietary software operation.
  - tluyben2 4y ago
    Somewhere else in this thread I asked for the list of licenses as I see most of these products keep the parts with the most work closed or under a license that many companies won’t touch (agpl or n2n license). It seems that almost everything is MIT; that is pretty refreshing for something like this. Check alternative solutions and you’ll find trivial parts open sourced and the hard parts proprietary or unusable in other software because of the license choice. Kudos to the team of total.js. Who cares if they offer some paid stuff; because of the MIT license anyone can. If they don’t do it, someone else can and offer it all the same. As long as vital parts remain MIT, I cannot see how this is a proprietary software operation. Tl;dr I agree with you, but I don’t see that being the case here

RobotToaster 4y ago

Some of the choices of what to make premium seem weird too, like zigbee MQTT.