It is a huge deal if I can start investigating and deploying such a solution as a techie right away, compared to having to go through all the internal hoops for a software purchase.
Having the landing page explain the motivations of the authors vis-a-vis open source goes a long way to providing the context for whatever licensing is appearing in the source repos, and helps understand what the future steer for the project is likely to be.
There are loads of ostensibly open source projects out there whose real goal is to drive sales of associated software and services, often without which the value of the opensource components is reduced, especially in the developer tooling space.
No, but I also don't see why that matters a lot. Once you adopted a third party project as a dependency, you also implicitly sign up to whatever changes they do, or you get prepared for staying on a static version with only security fixes you apply yourself. This isn't exactly new problems nor rocket science, we've been dealing with these sort of things for decades already.
> There are loads of ostensibly open source projects out there whose real goal is to drive sales of associated software and services, often without which the value of the opensource components is reduced, especially in the developer tooling space.
Yeah, which is kind of terrible, but also kind of great. But in the end, ends up being fairly easy to detect one way or another, with the biggest and reddest signal being VC funded with no public pricing.
Isn’t a big part of getting a project out there actually letting people know what it is? Especially if you’re trying to give a tool to the open source-valuing community. That’s a high priority for them. That’s like having a vegan menu and not saying you’re a vegan restaurant anywhere public facing.
Agree to disagree. It should be front and center the moment I find your tool IMO.