[rubenfiszel]

Ola from windmill.dev, another open-source VC-backed company using AGPL. We actually spoke before your pivot and we now have a bit overlap on the dashboard builder but our audience is fairly separate.

Congrats, you made what I believe is the best move a software company can do in our space. You will hear a lot of naysayers, and sure the software we build is not as permissive as Apache 2.0 and MIT. Those are all true and valid points. It's also true that VCs have perverse incentives and as a naturally skeptic myself, I understand not wanting to touch it.

Let me bring a little bit of counter-points to those:

- AGPL or Commercial Open-Source Software would probably just not exist at all if there was no path to commercialization at all. So the dichotomy between making it true MIT or AGPL is a false one, it's the choice between proprietary/no software and AGPL and I think we can all agree the latter is better. Software Engineers need to eat and there is a pool of talented engineers for whom glory is not fully sufficient and also need their work to be a reasonable financial paths. This enables more SWE to compete to build more software and make the software landscape more competitive for the benefit of the end-users.

- Taking VC money is not signing a pact with the devil that strips away your entire freedom, especially at @lucasfcosta stage and ours. The real issue is with being fully dependent on that money by having bad financial health and needing to raise in X months. COSS company like ours can stay lean and profitable, taking just the right amount of money from VC to kickstart a long-term journey to become a behemoth of a software company through having advantages over all the proprietary alternatives. Windmill for instance is profitable, and no investors has ever pressured us to go faster or monetize more. 99% of our users are using the free/open-source version but the 1% that is not is made of medium and large enterprises that hugely appreciate running their infra on open-source software that they can easily audit and contribute to. It would have been SO MUCH harder to convince them without being open-source given our size. Another fact that helps is pricing but that is also related to our open-source nature. It's harder to over-price your large customers because at a certain point they can say screw it, they will just build in-house to go above the proprietary features. All that to say that companies do have incentives but also are made of humans which have their own values and goals, and have some agenda to set their own path, especially early on. It's all about balance and I would argue taking a bit of VC money at the seed-stage at a good valuation and then not much more is the optimal path right now.

[jay-barronville]

You just can’t win with some folks and I honestly don’t think it’s worth the effort to try. You remain proprietary, they’ll complain. You open-source what you can with a reasonable enough license that protects you and allows you maintain a business atop your product, they’ll complain. You build it with zero venture backing and you’ll be begging for support and donations to keep building the product.

I appreciate that folks like y’all take the risk to build dope products and still do your part to open-source what you can. In an ideal world, everything would be open-source (by purist standards) with ultra-permissive licenses, but that’s, unfortunately, not the world we currently live in.