171–180 of 295 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To give commercial users an incentive to pay for the open source software they use. Can you name an open source project that does not offer extended features for commercial versions and that sells? Because I can't
> Can you name an open source project that does not offer extended features for commercial versions and that sells? pfSense, Ceph (prior to RH purchase) and OpenNebula off the top of my head.
It's not 2005 any more, Sun Microsystems is long gone. You won't raise any money from a business model that gives away your best work or selling support contracts alone.
Caddy is a real innovation, and brings web server defaults bang up to date - it makes loads of complex configuration easy. It's already distributed in the finest tradition of free software - a liberal source code license with no restrictions. You can do what you want with it.
Like GNU in the 80s and OpenBSD in the 90s, Matt is selling the most convenient package and yeah - if that's the one you used and relied on for your infrastructure, you've got to pay, and not very much.
Matt has clearly worked hard at making that payment support as much as possible in terms of convenient corporate deployment. I really hope that works out well, and am glad it's a business model that supports Free software without any compromises.
Came back to this thread during lunch, and a few things I'm seeing have me more worried about Caddy than I originally was. Originally it just seemed like a very minor misstep, but now it seems more likely to be the start of something worse. Can I ask - what exactly is Light Code Labs? The page really doesn't say much. It almost seems like some 3rd year Computer Engineering student at BYU came along and talked Matt Ho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you name an open source project that does not offer extended features for commercial versions and that sells? pfSense, Ceph (prior to RH purchase) and OpenNebula off the top of my head.
Pfsense does have commercial offering though netgate...
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…
Open source developers NEVER owe users anything. Never.
Stop being so entitled.
I said further below that this makes Caddy nonfree, but I was corrected - you can still build Caddy from source, remove the bullshit, and distribute your changes and compiled binaries under Apache 2.0. However, after examining the website more I feel the need to write another comment expressing how poorly this is being handled. The website is very misleading - on the download page, it now asks you to pick a license,…
> The authors are also wasting no time in going after forks[1] to complain about trademark infringement, so if you want to distribute your own patched Caddy builds you can expect to hear from their lawyers. Absolutely devoid of class. This in particular doesn't seem fair. Trademark really requires trademark holders to make active efforts to preserve their trademarks as soon as they're aware of potential breaches, or…
Now, simply by clicking "Fork" -- and doing nothing else (i.e. modifying the source code), I am now violating their trademark? That's bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why's that? (And even among your technical visitors, how many of them actually inspect the response headers?) I dislike this for a few reasons. Firstly, it honestly comes across as petty. I'm using the server for personal reasons, it's for a non-commercial site which I don't make money off. I don't display ads, and suddenly I'm now being forced to serve ads to my visitors. The medium of delivery is utterly irreleva…
> Secondly, it makes it more difficult to take steps to make it less obvious which web server is being used. I'd do this to make it slightly more difficult for script kiddies looking to exploit recent vulnerabiltiies - not because I think security through obscurity is a good idea. I thought about this as well, but I'm not convinced that hiding the Server header or anything like unto it is really that beneficial. Most…
It probably doesn't help much but it can't hurt. Some servers send back a "Server" header that tells you the OS being used with the Apache and PHP version up to the minor version number for example. There's no benefit to leaking this information and it's potentially useful to an attacker even if only marginally so why risk it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for your feedback. You could build from source, that's free. If you need a commercial license, contact us at sales@lightcodelabs.com and we'll see about working something out for you!
Even the time required to negotiate a custom commercial license costs more than the license is worth (and/or more than the switching cost) for most personal users. I was using Caddy because I don't have time in my day to configure Nginx; but I also don't have time in my day to build Caddy from source to repackage+deploy it to my infrastructure. So back to Nginx it is. What I would have time in my day for is a standar…
is time the right word here?