swordinthestone on Nostr: Looks cool, but some quite off putting arbitrary restrictions in the community ...
Looks cool, but some quite off putting arbitrary restrictions in the community edition.
I always think the way it should work is this, if it claims to be open source, there must be exact feature parity with open source code for all features. And then of course if the company wants to offer hosting and support, that's amazing.
But by actually changing the feature set (e.g. no AD syncing for example), it's really stretching the definition of open source, because I can't compile with that feature apparently.
I understand that they want to stop big companies from just using it for free, but I think for that a newer license model like Bruce Paren's proposed "post open" model is going to be the way forward.
I always think the way it should work is this, if it claims to be open source, there must be exact feature parity with open source code for all features. And then of course if the company wants to offer hosting and support, that's amazing.
But by actually changing the feature set (e.g. no AD syncing for example), it's really stretching the definition of open source, because I can't compile with that feature apparently.
I understand that they want to stop big companies from just using it for free, but I think for that a newer license model like Bruce Paren's proposed "post open" model is going to be the way forward.