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

281–290 of 295 posts

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#281

Post by tjholowaychuk »

camus2 wrote: post #274
tjholowaychuk wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Or just pay the person who worked hard on the project and not be a selfish prick.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#282

Post by camus2 »

tjholowaychuk wrote: post #281
camus2 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Or just pay the person who worked hard on the project and not be a selfish prick.

> Or just pay the person who worked hard on the project and not be a selfish prick.

and got granted $50.000 to maintain an open source project. Maybe that person who "worked hard" should give back the money, instead of being a dishonest "prick". And let's be frank, caddy is a fucking mashup. the great majority of its functionalities come from Go std lib or 3rd party libs, maybe caddy should give money back to them and all its contributors as well.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#283

Post by camus2 »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #280
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…

> 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.

Yes, and you don't have to pay to use a packaged distribution of Apache free of adware.

> I think it pretty much covers the case.

I think it pretty much doesnt.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#284

Post by tjholowaychuk »

camus2 wrote: post #282
tjholowaychuk wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just pay the person who worked hard on the project and not be a selfish prick.

> Or just pay the person who worked hard on the project and not be a selfish prick. and got granted $50.000 to maintain an open source project. Maybe that person who "worked hard" should give back the money, instead of being a dishonest "prick". And let's be frank, caddy is a fucking mashup. the great majority of its functionalities come from Go std lib or 3rd party libs, maybe caddy should give money back to them an…

Absolutely! I really think that should be payed forward as well, I'd love to do the same with my projects since they lean heavily on other work, but ultimately you have to become sustainable first or there isn't much to give back.

The only alternative is to do the typical VC route, have some startup that makes zero revenue and just hacks on OSS, which is a bigger drain on the economy and I don't believe produces better work anyway.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#285

Post by tjholowaychuk »

throwa34943way wrote: post #233
tjholowaychuk wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but being granted $50.000 from Mozilla under the claim of supporting an open source project can sustain you for at least 2 years. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-3850... Mozilla should have given the money to another project.

Ah news to me, that is definitely a lot of cash.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#287

Post by kelnos »

kbenson wrote: post #278
tylersmith wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. Some people are fine with using free-as-in-beer software if the "cost" of that is the maker gets some free advertising. Some people -- like many in this thread -- are not ok with that. Both positions are perfectly valid.

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#288

Post by kuschku »

callahad wrote: post #110
UseStrict wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, in the course of this HN thread I went from learning about Caddy, to deciding against using it. Definitely not cool to immediately threaten legal action almost instantly after forking. Definitely not cool to force a header. I'll be sticking with nginx.

Which is frustrating, because Caddy is a great product, especially from a solo operator standpoint. Configuration is simple and the defaults are sane. The humans behind Caddy are nice people. And while this move has somewhat soured my opinion of the project, I'm not so much angry as I am... sad. I want to use Caddy. I am using Caddy. But I don't want to use this Caddy, at the moment.

Actually, the defaults are quite insane.

For example: You might know that all domain names are in the root zone, named ".", so any domain actually is resolved to e.g. news.ycombinator.com. And if you enter the domain with the dot, it is the same DNS name, and should give you the same result. Apache does that, Nginx does that, Google’s cloud does that, Amazon’s cloud does that, all major sites do that...

Caddy considers it irrelevant, and something users should add manually for all of their rules if they want it. Ignoring all the RFCs, because of personal ideals.

https://github.com/mholt/caddy/issues/1632

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#289

Post by kuschku »

mholt wrote: post #143
stephenr wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can 3.1a even be included? It's against the terms to discover the source code, that they themselves link to on the page you download from?

Prohibiting reverse engineering of the binaries is a standard restriction. If prevents not-well-formed copies of the source code being distributed, and as you said, they can just download the source from the repository. :)

And it’s also completely null and void under EU law anyway, so you might as well remove it.

EDIT: I’ll refer to this historical case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Institute_Inc_v_World_Prog...

Re: Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses

#290

Post by slitaz »

romanovcode wrote: post #158
slitaz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Caddy developers messed up and did not follow the example of nginx. That is, keep Caddy as it was and get sponsorships/memberships for a "Caddy Plus".

They did do exactly that for couple of months. I guess it didn't work out so well.

Do you have a link that shows that attempt?
Post reply on HN