Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

caddyserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 295 posts

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#121

Post by xj9 »

jimangel wrote: post #21

I completely understand this direction, and really appreciate the work mholt and team has put into Caddy, but I'm disappointed at the same time. I looked forward to spinning up my dumb ideas tied with commerce using Caddy (on a 0 budget). I've been a Caddy evangelist ever since discovering the powers (auto HTTPS, git webhooks, simple config, etc.), I had plans to write blogs about simple sites for simple ideas that c…

actually yes. i just opened a ticket to base the build on a freedom respecting fork. i've been using this docker build for a while to serve a bunch of sites that i host. i'm in the process of setting up a new build system, but i do push to the docker hub repo regularly.

https://oasis.sandstorm.io/shared/McS6o5vxJ6U4TDjB8jntoVZUtm...

https://source.heropunch.io/relax/gridpkgs/tree/latest/repo/...

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#122

Post by tjholowaychuk »

Whitestrake wrote: post #115
tjholowaychuk wrote: post #104

Congrats! Good luck. Ignore all the angry people they clearly have no idea what it's like to try and make a living off this stuff, just entitled spoiled brats. Not to mention the salary that most developers make, paying $25-100/m for software you enjoy is not much. IMHO if you can't justify the price, then don't use it.

Well, everyone's opinion is valid and useful as feedback. The good part is, if you can't justify the price, surely you can justify the time to write a bash script to compile it yourself? Further up this comments page is one fantastic example. There's still plenty of options, really, not much has changed.

For sure, but I think a lot of people have to realize they're not the target market for this kind of thing. You simply cannot make a living from people trying to run their side projects for Seeing people complain about paying for software is just annoying. They should work for free then, if that's their mentality.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#123

Post by TAForObvReasons »

yorwba wrote: post #117
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It assumes you understand the Apache 2.0 license and makes no attempt to clarify that businesses can use the open source version. The authors are absolutely operating in bad faith here. The summary at the top completely omits the case of commercial users building from source, and the language confusion between "use Caddy" vs "use or distribute official Caddy binaries" intentionally tries to confuse the matter. > Re…

> Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2. You have to follow the terms of the license whenever you distribute it to someone. Unless you are a single-person shop, that might include employees who have access to the binaries but aren't actually interested in the source. You still have to appropriately disclose changes and keep the attribution notices.…

Apache 2 license applies, the question is whether attribution and disclosure are required. And the answer is "Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2." Disclosure is required when selling on-premises software that includes the project in question

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#124

Post by e12e »

mholt wrote: post #33
stavros wrote: post #19

I've been trying to get Caddy more widely deployed at work, and this move is going to alienate commercial customers (at least us) even more than Caddy already does. Not only do they not have repositories, essentially doubling the effort to keep machines up to date (we have to have one process to upgrade everything else , and one process to upgrade just Caddy ), but now we can't even download precompiled binaries to d…

> Not only do they not have repositories, essentially doubling the effort to keep machines up to date (we have to have one process to upgrade everything else, and one process to upgrade just Caddy) Cory's working on this, actually. If we can get it working, we should be able to offer official Caddy packages to all our customers, customized just how they need it to be, so your 'apt upgrade' could upgrade Caddy as well…

> True, it's not "apt install"

And I guess it'll never enter Debian/main now, unless a maintainer forks it in order to build Free binaries :/

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#125

Post by [deleted] »

tjholowaychuk wrote: post #122
Whitestrake wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, everyone's opinion is valid and useful as feedback. The good part is, if you can't justify the price, surely you can justify the time to write a bash script to compile it yourself? Further up this comments page is one fantastic example. There's still plenty of options, really, not much has changed.

For sure, but I think a lot of people have to realize they're not the target market for this kind of thing. You simply cannot make a living from people trying to run their side projects for Seeing people complain about paying for software is just annoying. They should work for free then, if that's their mentality.

[deleted]

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#126

Post by callahad »

tjholowaychuk wrote: post #104

Congrats! Good luck. Ignore all the angry people they clearly have no idea what it's like to try and make a living off this stuff, just entitled spoiled brats. Not to mention the salary that most developers make, paying $25-100/m for software you enjoy is not much. IMHO if you can't justify the price, then don't use it.

It's not $25-100/mo, it's effectively $50/mo per instance of Caddy, including your local development machine: https://caddyserver.com/pricing

Running three static sites in their own containers, plus a fourth Caddy as a reverse proxy, and your laptop? That's $250/mo. Is a buddy of yours also working on one of those sites? Oops, now you're at the $500/mo (10 license) tier.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#127

Post by yorwba »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #123
yorwba wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2. You have to follow the terms of the license whenever you distribute it to someone. Unless you are a single-person shop, that might include employees who have access to the binaries but aren't actually interested in the source. You still have to appropriately disclose changes and keep the attribution notices.…

Apache 2 license applies, the question is whether attribution and disclosure are required. And the answer is "Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2." Disclosure is required when selling on-premises software that includes the project in question

Are you saying that installing the software on your infrastructure or checking the code into source control doesn't constitute redistribution, even when others have access to these? IANAL, but it seems to me that the license requires you to give each recipient appropriate notice, no matter what your relationship with the recipient is.

I'm interested why you wouldn't have to take any of the actions listed at https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#redistribution

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#128

Post by mattl »

fortythirteen wrote: post #58
dchest wrote: post #2

Beginning today, all official Caddy binaries come with an End User License Agreement (EULA) that designates them either for Personal (non-commercial) or Commercial use. To be clear, this EULA applies only to Caddy binaries you download; it does not apply to the source code. Caddy is still open source, and the source code is under the same Apache 2.0 license. Thanks for keeping it open source. I'm very interested in h…

Since you could pull yesterday's version: OpenOffice -> LibreOffice Gnome -> Mate Caddy -> ?

Wedge.

https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#129

Post by dchest »

fortythirteen wrote: post #58
dchest wrote: post #2

Beginning today, all official Caddy binaries come with an End User License Agreement (EULA) that designates them either for Personal (non-commercial) or Commercial use. To be clear, this EULA applies only to Caddy binaries you download; it does not apply to the source code. Caddy is still open source, and the source code is under the same Apache 2.0 license. Thanks for keeping it open source. I'm very interested in h…

Since you could pull yesterday's version: OpenOffice -> LibreOffice Gnome -> Mate Caddy -> ?

You can pull today's or future versions as it's still open source under the same license. Please read the above quote.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#130

Post by Whitestrake »

callahad wrote: post #106

Congratulations on the launch, and good luck finding a sustainable means of funding Caddy. It's a uniquely ergonomic webserver. That said, the unalterable Caddy-Sponsors HTTP header feels bad, and cheapens my overall impression of Caddy as a quality product. Now, instead of paying for a license to gain access to enterprise features or support, I'm paying to remove ads. From my webserver. Which now has a custom licens…

> That said, the unalterable Caddy-Sponsors HTTP header feels bad, and cheapens my overall impression of Caddy as a quality product.

Hit the nail on the head. There's lots of reasons why this is a non-problem, intellectually speaking, but none of the arguments for this remove the bad taste in my mouth, emotionally speaking. The other news doesn't bother me, but the header... disappoints me.

Post reply on HN