[mdaniel]

For fear of having dang show up and scold me, I'll just add the factual statement that I will never ever believe any open source claim in any Launch HN ever. I can now save myself the trouble of checking, because I can be certain it's untrue

I already knew to avoid "please share your thoughts," although I guess I am kind of violating that one by even commenting

[theturtletalks]

I agree, I've seen so many products start open source to gain traction, get into YC, and then either go closed source or change the license. That's a bait and switch and I appreciate the comment pointing it out.

I downloaded Cactus a couple months back because I saw a comment, but bait and switch like this makes we want to look for an actual open source solution.

[HenryNdubuaku]

The license change doesn’t affect you based on your explanation actually, the licence has been updated with clearer words. We really appreciate you as a user, please share any more feedback you have, thanks.

[HenryNdubuaku]

It’s absolutely fine to share your thoughts, that’s the point of this post, we want to understand where people’s heads are at, it’s what determines our next decisions. What do you really think? I’m genuinely asking so I don’t think mods will react.

[trollbridge]

Here’s an example of what I want to do: ship our application entirely open source/free (AGPL3), but with options for interested parties who want to pay us for support/consulting to do so. Likewise, we want interested parties who want to build their own proprietary app on top of our stack to be able to do so.

Mixing in a “you have to pay if you’re a corporation” licence makes this difficult if not impossible, particularly if we wanted deep integration with eg Cactus. We don’t want to police a “corporation” who wants to use our open source software.