6 ms·
Open-sourced doesnt have to be free either. There's always the very good GNU Affero General Public License 3 (AGPL-3) and others. I think most developers want o
by nextblock 2mo ago
Open-sourced doesnt have to be free either. There's always the very good GNU Affero General Public License 3 (AGPL-3) and others. I think most developers want open-source for transparency. We want to know what we are downloading.
- ameliaquining 2mo agoAGPL software is in practice always gratis, because anyone who has a copy can post it on the internet where anyone can download it. The monetization benefit of AGPL is that it makes it significantly more annoying (but by no means impossible) for IaaS providers to sell managed hosting for the software without making a separate commercial agreement with the copyright holder. This usually isn't relevant to dev tools that users run on their own machines.
- davisr 2mo agoYou say this as a fact, but you're wrong and I'm living proof of that. You can earn good income selling copies of AGPL software. It doesn't matter if people upload it to a public place, that's their right, and *that right* is why so many people buy a copy in the first place. You are spreading FUD.
- nextblock 2mo agoAlso, the money can be made selling premium package/modules/features on that Free core AGPL software.