From my own perspective, I still have exclusive copyright in my current projects. This makes it very easy to consider a change of strategy thru licensing. However, I find the GPL very helpful in repelling some out of the markets I care about, and by componentizing at the service level I can make central dependencies proprietary while providing other service components as part of distributions.
For example, in my own projects, things like the upper level Apollo web integration service could be built and delivered differently and under a different license. That is a form of what some now call the open core business model, except for me it would be what is at the edge, not really the core, that is then open, and what is abstract orchestration at the center can be more valuable potentially than what is at the edge which is often platform adaption.
The problem with that approach is most people don't care, they go like "ohhh, useful code, I don't care about its license, nobody will anyways know" ...
The ones who do care though are the gatekeepers to distributions and what they will permit to be packaged. If one's strategy includes having some things packaged and delivered as part of some distro, it is essential that those parts of what your doing will please them. Gatekeepers naturally always view themselves as the most important element in the software chain, too. I talk a little about this in my post about distro packaging...
Cool, my project doesn't fit the profile though, since it's a software development framework. It's got 10,500,000 downloads, and it generated zero revenue.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
From my own perspective, I still have exclusive copyright in my current projects. This makes it very easy to consider a change of strategy thru licensing. However, I find the GPL very helpful in repelling some out of the markets I care about, and by componentizing at the service level I can make central dependencies proprietary while providing other service components as part of distributions.
For example, in my own projects, things like the upper level Apollo web integration service could be built and delivered differently and under a different license. That is a form of what some now call the open core business model, except for me it would be what is at the edge, not really the core, that is then open, and what is abstract orchestration at the center can be more valuable potentially than what is at the edge which is often platform adaption.
The problem with that approach is most people don't care, they go like "ohhh, useful code, I don't care about its license, nobody will anyways know" ...
The ones who do care though are the gatekeepers to distributions and what they will permit to be packaged. If one's strategy includes having some things packaged and delivered as part of some distro, it is essential that those parts of what your doing will please them. Gatekeepers naturally always view themselves as the most important element in the software chain, too. I talk a little about this in my post about distro packaging...
Cool, my project doesn't fit the profile though, since it's a software development framework. It's got 10,500,000 downloads, and it generated zero revenue.