3 ms·
They won't do this, because starting out as non-free doesn't get the same traction. Now that I think about it, it's basically a form of enshitification: draw pe
by rpdillon 14d ago
They won't do this, because starting out as non-free doesn't get the same traction. Now that I think about it, it's basically a form of enshitification: draw people in with one deal, then after they're onboard, change it to something less favorable.
- amelius 14d agoWhy is it enshittification if you only have to pay when you have >$5M in revenue? Is your world so shit if you cross that threshold?
- johnnyanmac 14d agoI think the issue is more on how you audit such things. Governments struggle (partially by design, but still) to get proper audits on who uses what and how much money they make. The theory is great, but I'm unsure how you execute this.
- amelius 14d agoWell, that's even more reason to not complain about it.
- _carbyau_ 14d agoIt isn't about catching every last >5m business out. It is about having a rule that can be enforced when it is obvious to do so.
- johnnyanmac 14d agoFair enough. I'm in support of it, but it seems like any company >5m is also going to give a big legal fight if and when they are challenged on such aspects. But I'm all for a good attempt at taking our wealth back either way.
- kelnos 13d agoI think the maintainer is still better off if only 50% of companies that should be paying are actually paying. The alternative is to just get nothing. And if the maintainer wants to, they can always try to go after some of the more egregious offenders.
- rpdillon 14d agoI'm just observing the incentives. There is a reason these licenses have not taken off, especially for nascent projects.