This is really, really cool! On the licensing side, though: > We’ve made the decision to make the editor source-available so that folks can make contributions

This is really, really cool! On the licensing side, though: > We’ve made the decision to make the editor source-available so that folks can make contributions and so that they can examine the code to make sure they can trust it. This is a very reasonable intent, and it absolutely makes sense to preserve your options to monetize, but Polyform Strict https://polyformproject.org/licenses/strict/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/strict/1.0.0/ , which you link to from your readme, seems to be far stronger than this intent. The way I read that license, I cannot "make changes" even if I do not distribute those changes, not even changing a line of code on a version I'm running on my own computer, whether I'm using it for a commercial project or not. So contributors, it seems, would be limited to raising issues but not PRs? And it's unclear what applies as commercial use - if I'm using Haystack on a commercial codebase, and I encounter a bug that triggers on that codebase, and want to use the Haystack source code to understand what's going on to further my commercial purpose, would that be an unlicensed use of the source code? Now, make no mistake - this is in no ways worse than the prior status quo of Haystack being closed-source. And I think you as a company should focus on building, with the certainty and comfort that this license, if anything, does err on the side of being restrictive. But some users, given this license, will be uncomfortable referring to the repository at all. I'll be one of those, but will still be excited to experiment with Haystack as a binary distribution nonetheless! (Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice!)