4 ms·

I'm sad to see this. I supported Bear because it was open source. As that's no longer the case, I just canceled my membership. I would love to see this reverse

I'm sad to see this. I supported Bear because it was open source. As that's no longer the case, I just canceled my membership. I would love to see this reversed and moved to AGPL instead.

bruce511 1y ago
I think this is fair, by both Bear and yourself. He's free to attach any license he likes, you are free to use it or not. Obviously the goal of Open Source licenses does not include making money. You might, or might not, but it's not a priority. Equally your goal may be to only support Open Source projects. That's fine. For you removing support for this project makes sense. Once a project reaches the stage of needing to create an income stream, Open Source licenses are no longer appropriate. Yes, some developers are naive in thinking Open Source licenses protect their income stream. Yes some users are naive in thinking that projects will remain Open Source forever. Source-available, or Shipped-with-source of whatever you want to call it is a proprietary license which is just fine. It's not Open Source, nor does it need to be.
- account42 1y ago
  Legally it's OK but I think ethically using open source to build up a brand that is then used to sell proprietary software is ethically questionable - just like the free until the competition has been eliminated bait and switch common in tech startups. Not saying this happened in this specific case though.
fastball 1y ago
What is the difference (to you) between open source and source available?
- hellcow 1y ago
  One is altruistic, akin to charity. It deliberately maximizes users’ rights to do anything they want with the software (freedom 0). I’m only in the lucky position I’m in now because of open source, and I want to push for more of that in the world with my wallet and my time. I’m not going out of my way to support a commercial license. There are a million commercial blog platforms to choose from.

I'm sad to see this. I supported Bear because it was open source. As that's no longer the case, I just canceled my membership. I would love to see this reversed and moved to AGPL instead.

bruce511 1y ago

I think this is fair, by both Bear and yourself. He's free to attach any license he likes, you are free to use it or not. Obviously the goal of Open Source licenses does not include making money. You might, or might not, but it's not a priority. Equally your goal may be to only support Open Source projects. That's fine. For you removing support for this project makes sense. Once a project reaches the stage of needing to create an income stream, Open Source licenses are no longer appropriate. Yes, some developers are naive in thinking Open Source licenses protect their income stream. Yes some users are naive in thinking that projects will remain Open Source forever. Source-available, or Shipped-with-source of whatever you want to call it is a proprietary license which is just fine. It's not Open Source, nor does it need to be.

account42 1y ago
Legally it's OK but I think ethically using open source to build up a brand that is then used to sell proprietary software is ethically questionable - just like the free until the competition has been eliminated bait and switch common in tech startups. Not saying this happened in this specific case though.

fastball 1y ago

What is the difference (to you) between open source and source available?

hellcow 1y ago
One is altruistic, akin to charity. It deliberately maximizes users’ rights to do anything they want with the software (freedom 0). I’m only in the lucky position I’m in now because of open source, and I want to push for more of that in the world with my wallet and my time. I’m not going out of my way to support a commercial license. There are a million commercial blog platforms to choose from.