[martypitt]

> As long as you have Pricing on your website your product is not open source in the true spirit of open sourceness.

It's an MIT license. That IS open source.

If they have a commercial strategy - that's a GoodThing. It means they have a viable strategy for staying in business, and keeping the project maintained.

MIT == OpenSource. Pricing == Sustainable. That's a horse worth backing IMO.

[WhitneyLand]

Exactly, if everything looked too good to be true and there was no transparency or hint of a business model it’s actually less attractive for some who value predictability.

[zb3]

> It's an MIT license. That IS open source.

The source is available and you can do much with it, but the incentive is that this alone should not be enough.

[_pdp_]

You are not wrong but in most cases this is a trojan horse. It has the characteristics of a classic rugpullware.

At the top level looks like open source but it is not really because parts (the most useful ones) of the project are not. Imagine if python was open source but the core libraries where not. You wont call this open source in the true spirit of open source. You could make the argument that at least it is sustainable because they a have now a business model. It doesn't add up.

I prefer more of a honest take on software. There is nothing wrong to make money while contributing back to the community in some meaningful way or by simply being transparent. In fact this is the best kind and there are plenty of good examples.

All I am saying is that when I see such projects I tend to think that in most cases they are dishonest to themselves or their communities or both.