231–240 of 295 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah... What I don't understand is why nginx doesn't have built-in LetsEncrypt cert fetching yet.
After this I would bet they have it before very long.
Is Mozilla OK with this? Maybe Mozilla should give money on free software projects that plan on remaining free instead next time...
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850...
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.
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850...
Mozilla should have given the money to another project.
@mholt is being exceedingly generous to the whingers on this thread, on top of the generosity he's shown in writing Caddy to start with. 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 configurat…
Mholt got $50.000 from Mozilla to maintain an open source project as well. It should factor into the discussion.
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850...
The only generous people here is Mozilla, especially when they financed a commercial project with open source grants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. Still kind of shitty to have had access and then have it removed, and then say 'nothing has really changed, guys!'. If they rephrased it to admit they're moving to a Red Hat model of "pay for binary", the news would have fared better. More straightforward, with a direct comparison to a current, successful brand. Let's face it: They realized their product was popular, took advantage of tons of interest and documen…
> Let's face it: They realized their product was popular, took advantage of tons of interest and documentation/blogs/hype in the community, then decided to charge for binary distribution. It's a bit of a burn. Or another way of looking at it: Open source has to be subsidized (either through free time or commercial backing) in order to continue to contribute to open source. The amount of time and effort to maintain a…
Yep and Caddy was, $50.000 in 2016 from Mozilla
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it feels like a bad investment. In terms of cash, $1200 a year is a lot to me personally, I'm a student, I have no income, and I'm trying to bootstrap a startup. $1200 could feed me for a year. Even when I had my PhD stipend, $1200 was a months stipend. I originally chose to use Caddy over NGINX because it made https easy: just download, configure, run. If I have to remove the sponsor code and build it myself…
What on earth bootstrapped startup needs ~24 Caddy licenses? If you're operating at that scale and not generating revenue, your business won't last long anyway...
It's $100/month for 2 instances, you can only pay annually, so $1,200 is the minimum you can pay and it nets you two instances, not 24.
If it was $100 for a year and included 5 license to cover live and dev environments, I'd probably have just bitten the bullet and paid for it. I don't really care for the "basic email support" being offered, I just want to serve web traffic.
1. I applaud this effort. 2. Ive been researching sustainable funding models for open source. Will the maintainers be blogging about the progress and results? Would be useful to learn about what they discover.
> As of version 0.10.9, Caddy emits an HTTP response header, Caddy-Sponsors, which is similar to the Server header that Caddy already has, except that this one credits our sponsors who make it possible to keep Caddy free for personal use. This header cannot be removed by the Caddyfile, and its presence is required by the non-commercial EULA. This requirement is waived by the commercial license, so the header is not p…
They're going to search for commercial sites sending this header and then hit them up for money.
This is DRM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for your comments. I think that this thread can be added to the bucket of all the others that reveal the unhealthy expectation in the FOSS community, and I'm not convinced that the "variety of reasons" are compelling. It's regrettable that our announcement today is so controversial. As much as a donation model is easy and safe, it is not a business plan. (We tried it.)
"the unhealthy expectation in the FOSS community" Nobody is "expecting" you to make good software, we're just saying that now that you've turned a formally mostly decent piece of software into adware with an untrustworthy author there's no reason to not just use better software. Software that doesn't molest your traffic. I wish you luck with your business but don't know why anybody would pay for software written by y…