are you monetizing this as a separate business from: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/scratch-data
But I started working this as something I wish existed as opposed to having some big VC strategy and pitch deck behind it.
(Also, I appreciate all of your feedback on this a month ago! It was really helpful to encourage me to keep looking into this and also figuring out the "first" things to launch with!)
The monetization paragraph reads really weird, as if you believe HN is a community of VC-adjacent people looking for new ways to make money (it isn't), and talking about how you plan to exploit your new project is mandatory (it isn't either).
it kinda is. There are all sorts of people here, but HN is owned by YC, a well known VC fund. That doesn't mean that everyone here is one, but it certainly influences the community here.
> and talking about how you plan to exploit your new project is mandatory
it's not mandatory but it's a frequently asked question. OP might as well answer it while they have the mic.
What isn't irrelevant, I think, is the accusation that monetizing something you've worked on is somehow exploiting it. If this brings value to people, and they can make money using it, or make more money using, the OP deserves to charge them for it if they want to. There's nothing wrong or exploitative about that. You are free to donate all your time and not charge anyone for anything but it's silly to frame someone charging for their work as an exploitation of either that thing or the people paying for it.
Where was this claim made? I missed it.
> Projects that were created to "scratch one's itch" tend to fare better than those built to make money. Devs put more love and less stress into them than into things they want to build a business out of.
This project is based on SQLite, which is several people's livelihood. As a result, it's rock-solid, reliable, and available to all without fee or restriction.
So it's an odd choice of project to choose to express this sort of eminently debatable sentiment.
The main difference I expect with a hosted solution are things like multiple tenants or billing integrations. These aren’t core to the product and only necessary when you need to host someone else’s data.
My enthusiasm has instantly waned.
Why is AGPL needed? Just be MIT and make it easy for people, espefcially if you're not planning on monetising it.
I won't use AGPL code just on principle.
Not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious why you'd be so vehemently opposed to it.
Every man and his dog has made a message queue with Postgres. Message queues are everywhere on github and often posted on HN.
Which fulfills the developer will of attracting higher quality users that plan to collaborate with him. You got it right :)
You got something wrong tho, If you're anywhere close to a free software/open source space, you should know that using his AGPL SQS replacement, the only thing that would need to be public is whatever you change in it, not the things you use it.
Permissive licenses allow for proprietary forks, which may become more successful than the upstream project.
AGPL would be able to benefit from any improvements from any fork, and all those will remain OSS for everyone.
Nothing written here is related in any way to monetization.