5 ms·
> but that's the price they would be paying for the goodwill. this post exists because of the price of being an open source developer, your solution is to dema
by sabbaticaldev 2y ago
> but that's the price they would be paying for the goodwill.
this post exists because of the price of being an open source developer, your solution is to demand more free work?
- boris 2y agoI am not demanding anything, I am merely exploring if the "license rug pull" problem has a better solution. Redis paid dearly for it (justifiably or not) so if we can find a less costly option, wouldn't it be a good thing? I guess to put it another way, you are trying to change people's attitude towards open source while I am trying to see if there is a way around it.
- sabbaticaldev 2y agothink about a solution that you (and other OSS users) have more work to do then not the maintainers
- collingreen 2y agoThis seems overly hostile. The comment is pondering if there are alternatives that a corporation could do when switching license that could reduce their "cost" in goodwill. Stop treating it like they are demanding open source developers do something or are acting entitled because they aren't. They are discussing how, if a project owner wants something (more goodwill when changing licenses), they might do that effectively. You don't have to think redis should have been handled differently but that doesn't mean you should derail this person's thread.