New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Not going to happen. Not a slim chance, no chance. If you don't have integrity, what do you have? Not much.
It's because every change from a provider they rely on means their already slight $1 per year profit on plans is even less. Everyone else's fault that they can't price for the unexpected, or get customers without pricing cheaper than the cheapest price on LET.
Even if they decided to change the licensing of the open source part, they couldn't do so retroactively. Any part that was open source in the past would remain open source.
I think he means that we may start encoding the source. We released the source largely open for a very good reason, we aren't going to double back on that years later. But yes, anything released as open source under MIT (Blesta uses many open source libraries, and we contribute by creating many open source libraries) would remain so regardless.
There's a difference between FOSS (Free open source software) and just open source. While Blesta is largely open source, it includes both FOSS libraries, and commercial code that's simply open. But the point remains, we have no intention of encoding anything more than we currently do (3 files for licensing). If we made a change, it would be to not encode anything at all.
Yes, perhaps I misunderstood what exactly he meant.
I was just reacting to the idea that one can suddenly close software that has already been released under a free license. (And, indeed, the term open source isn't precise enough.)
in WHMCS case, a lot of customer.
Don't get me wrong, I love Blesta. The fact that it is offered by host for free make it even better. I really wish it becomes BIG, as BIG as WMHCS. But then again, I am afraid when it become as big as WHMCS, it will start doing what WHMCS does. Only time will tell, 🤞
I'm sure @pphillips means what he says, but the Blesta License does say "This License Agreement may be modified by us at anytime."
I think that applies to Blesta itself - it's open source, but it's not under any kind of FOSS license like MIT, GPL, etc.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I guess that I spoke too soon: if the "open source" part isn't under some free-software license after all (I had imagined incorrectly that it was), then @yokowasis has a legitimate concern.
Naturally, I agree that one can choose how to license one's software.
At the same time, "open source software" in the absence of some free-software license strikes me as more of a marketing ploy ("it sounds good") than as a commitment to free software, but perhaps I've missed something here (again).
There are reasons to go OSS without going FOSS. Perhaps the software is designed to be easily extensible by the end-user, but not free-as-in-beer.
There are some industries where you can buy the software or buy the software + source code. Having the code lets you extend it, add your own secret sauce, etc. but doesn't mean you can publish a competing product, share your enhancements, etc.
When in doubt, sue.
Think later.
I admit that I don't know Blesta enough to know what the practical advantages are of the open source part of Blesta.
Thanks, Randy Marsh.