4 ms·
Is this money going to the external contributors as well? Volunteers that submitted patches, tests, and documentation?
by ars_technician 13y ago
Is this money going to the external contributors as well? Volunteers that submitted patches, tests, and documentation?
- lsaferite 13y agoArguably you are paying for a license that covers support and the ADDITIONAL functionality. Everyone still has free access to the core code that people contributed towards. If they were to take contributed code and lock it behind a commercial license, THEN you could get all uppity.
- redblacktree 13y agoOthers are pointing out that they routinely reject these features in the FOSS offering, citing a conflict with the enterprise edition. That's the worst part of this, imo.
- lsaferite 13y agoI don't disagree, but my point is that the code people freely contributed prior to this change is still freely available to the public. If they are rejecting patches for features that impinge on their enterprise offerings and you have an issue with how the project is run now, you are welcome to not contribute, fork, or use another project.
- ars_technician 13y ago>If they are rejecting patches for features that impinge on their enterprise offerings and you have an issue with how the project is run now, you are welcome to not contribute, fork, or use another project. Which is precisely what is being argued.
- lsaferite 13y agoNo, you were insinuating they had an obligation to provide monetary compensation to the people who contributed code to the open source product when they sold licenses to the closed source product.
- rdtsc 13y agoIt is going to the primary developers of the product.
- ars_technician 13y agoSo it's just a nice 'screw-you' to the other people that contributed.
- rdtsc 13y agoIt is not they volunteered. These people volunteered as well for the longest time and then wanted to put some bread on the table based on their efforts. Don't see how that is a "screw you".