3 ms·
I actually have no beef with either “money will change hands in the future” or “AGPL because we want to advance FOSS.” The problem is that AGPL is a total no s
by ncruces 2y ago
I actually have no beef with either “money will change hands in the future” or “AGPL because we want to advance FOSS.”
The problem is that AGPL is a total no starter at “day job,” and even at “side gig,” I'm obviously not going to release the source code of the entire service because of a message queue dependency.
I mean, if I was trying to switch clouds for whatever reason, I might want this, and could even be persuaded to pay to self host it.
But at this point there's no pay option. Just source I couldn't possibly use, not even for a month, not even as a trial, company policy or no company policy.
It makes no sense.
- localfirst 2y agomy issue with money being mixed up with FOSS via AGPL is because it inevitably leads to a fork where the paid version has features and performance superior to the open source "community" version. i much rather ppl just release closed source proprietary software that i can pay for and the value proposition is clear not be lead to surprises down the road where the community version is neglected