2 ms·
Arguably you are paying for a license that covers support and the ADDITIONAL functionality. Everyone still has free access to the core code that people contribu
by lsaferite 13y ago
Arguably 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.