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

271–280 of 295 posts

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#271

Post by CodeWriter23 »

mholt wrote: post #28
lol768 wrote: post #23

> 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…

Thanks for your feedback. I'd like to know more. > The fact that the headers aren't seen by most non-technical users is moot. Why's that? (And even among your technical visitors, how many of them actually inspect the response headers?) > I find this practice pretty obnoxious to the point of looking at NGINX Plus for commercial use instead. It's good to know that price isn't the bottleneck, then. Does it make any diff…

Personally, I prefer viewing HTTP headers in the comfort and privacy of my Secret Mountain Laboratory, with my fluffy cat on my lap, usually in the middle of the night, and often in complete silence. That Caddy has chosen to interrupt what to me is a sacred space with advertisements, while burning additional bandwidth, all day every day, for no good reason at all because only weirdos like me are going to see it is beyond obnoxious. In my view if this doesn't cross the line into being antisocial, then it walks right up to that line. Do what you want with your code, and due to the MIT license, so will the rest of the Internet. And PS using a Trademark in a product comparison is covered by fair use. You all really should familiarize yourselves with the Streisand Effect and fundamentals of public relations.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#272

Post by bboozzoo »

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 -> ?

shady

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#273

Post by camus2 »

Denzel wrote: post #254
camus2 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Big companies are where they're going to buy the licenses because in those companies time is often more kmportnant than budget so you just buy stuff. It doesn't work quite like that. Unless you're friend with the guy who decides who the checks are signed to, or you are already an established brand or your product provides a value so big it's a no-brainer, nobody in a big company will invest in your solution. If the…

> > > "this bug is yours because you self compiled this thing", > never heard anything like that in my life. Off the top of my head, Google requires you to own any new third-party dependencies you pull into the source tree. Therefore, Google engineers think very carefully about their dependencies. Also, anecdotally, once my team (at a $100M start-up) decided vanilla Rails/ActiveResource didn't fully support our needs…

> Off the top of my head, Google requires you to own any new third-party dependencies you pull into the source tree. Therefore, Google engineers think very carefully about their dependencies.

And I doubt the same Google would just download some random executable on the net and use it in production instead of doing a extensive source code review and building the executable themselves if they can. My point exactly.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#274

Post by camus2 »

tjholowaychuk wrote: post #223
fooey wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I think is interesting, is the licensing model is basically reverse whaling The bigger the company is, the more likely they are to go with just building Caddy themselves instead of paying for it. So, the only people who need to run the commercial binaries are the situations where the licensing costs actually matter. Maybe I'm underestimating the size of the demographic they're targeting, but it seems to me that…

The company that goes and builds this themselves instead of paying a small fee for it, would be a pretty stupid company haha...

> The company that goes and builds this themselves instead of paying a small fee for it, would be a pretty stupid company haha...

There is a fork without the adware now, so the smart company will use the fork to get rid of the stupid ads.

https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#275

Post by bschwindHN »

shakna wrote: post #270
bschwindHN wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the time it probably took you to type that comment, I compiled caddy from source. I've never even used it before, but in general Go programs are very easy to build.

> but in general Go programs are very easy to build. So long as you organise all your code according to GOPATH. You can't just compile it in your Downloads folder.

Yes I think the GOPATH is bullshit but it's also not hard to move files from one directory to another.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#276

Post by kbenson »

lol768 wrote: post #265
kbenson wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Second edit: Accusation of trademark violation within an hour of the fork, classy! https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2 This is just like Red Hat. He's put a lot of work into his product, whether free or not, so don't use trademarked name. CentOS has the same restrictions about not using Red Hat in their distribution. This is just like someone releasing a book for free, and getting mad at someone that deci…

> This is just like Red Hat. He's put a lot of work into his product, whether free or not, so don't use trademarked name. Unfortunately when you fork a repository, it does copy the entire source tree. I can't type that fast, so there was a short period when the original README was still there.. there's also probably 400 other repositories on GitHub with the same problem. I knew this needed to be resolved, and it was…

> there's also probably 400 other repositories on GitHub with the same problem.

As I said in a sibling thread, it's not just that it was forked, it's that it was forked and then intended/was advertised as competition. Forking and keeping the name Caddy for private use isn't a problem, so I doubt many of those other repositories are actually a problem.

> I created this issue before the "you're violating our (unregistered) trademark!" issue was created.

If this situation arises again, it may be better to wait until the name issue is resolved before advertising it to a forum of people. Regardless of what your future intentions were, you were competing at that point, and you hadn't dealt with the naming yet. I understand the desire to both capitalize on the issue and help those that feel the same as you about this, but doing so here stepped on the rights of another individual or group.

> My intentions were good from the start, please don't talk to me as if that was not the case.

I think the intentions of the people with claim to the Caddy trademark that contacted you were good as well. The difference is that you noted the claim here and also editorialized it with a sarcastic "classy!". Really, it's that last bit which spurred the tone in my response, since it implies bad behavior on their part for what is essentially protecting what they consider theirs (and something they are legally required to do if they want to keep it). Without that, you might have gotten a more measured reply, or none at all as others might have been sufficient. Your intentions might have been good from the start, but they could have been a little better when deciding the wording for that announcement.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#277

Post by PenguinCoder »

gshulegaard wrote: post #217
PenguinCoder wrote: post #189

To everyone saying that Caddy made it simple for automated LE; I agree, but also, it's not that difficult to setup with NGINX: Edit /var/nginx/ssl_common.conf ssl_certificate /etc/letsencrypt/live/ /fullchain.pem; ssl_certificate_key /etc/letsencrypt/live/ /privkey.pem; location ^~ /.well-known/acme-challenge/ { default_type "text/plain"; allow all; root /var/www/example; auth_basic off; } Edit crontab, add: 30 2 * *…

Small improvement, but `reload` should do this while gracefully terminating connections: https://www.guyrutenberg.com/2017/01/01/lets-encrypt-reload-... http://nginx.org/en/docs/beginners_guide.html Basically `reload` should have the external appearance of 0 downtime.

Thanks.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#278

Post by kbenson »

tylersmith wrote: post #203
mholt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know devs who use Sublime Text almost indefinitely without paying. They don't mind the little "Hey don't forget to buy" popup every once in a while. We aren't putting popups on your site. :P

No, you're injecting data into traffic. That's way worse than a text editor occasionally reminding you you haven't paid.

Really? I don't see it as any different than an unregistered document editor saving "created with an unregistered version of X" in the comment section of saved documents that it edits. Stuff like that has been going on for decades.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#279

Post by pheeney »

throwa34943way wrote: post #251
always_good wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that like you think they're set for life...

All I say is Mozilla granting $50.000 on the premise of a project being free software is a lot of money given to a commercial product.

They are still open source right? Or does having a commercial version invalidate what they have open sourced?

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#280

Post by BrandoElFollito »

camus2 wrote: post #227
georgebarnett wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Big companies are where they're going to buy the licenses because in those companies time is often more kmportnant than budget so you just buy stuff. Another reason is that as soon as other teams become involved you get comments like "this bug is yours because you self compiled this thing", or "we have to buy the vendors version", etc etc. It's not logical and is basically arse covering. Buying the vendor…

> Big companies are where they're going to buy the licenses because in those companies time is often more kmportnant than budget so you just buy stuff. It doesn't work quite like that. Unless you're friend with the guy who decides who the checks are signed to, or you are already an established brand or your product provides a value so big it's a no-brainer, nobody in a big company will invest in your solution. If the…

> never heard anything like that in my life.

Just yesterday I was whipping a team because they built their own version of Apache (for dubious reasons) and broke the patch management system.

To quote myself "why the fuck didn't you use the distribution packaged version?? Now go and fix that right now, it is your problem"

I think it pretty much covers the case.

Post reply on HN