>I think its both insulting and an incredibly narrow-view to call permissively licensed software "pseudo freemium".
I don't mean the general case of permissively licensed software, but the way that the article expects Apple to act.
I don't mean the general case of permissively licensed software, but the way that the article expects Apple to act.
Which is it?
Still, a company like Apple can use these licenses to take outside contributions in their proprietary software. Freemium might not be the right word for that, but I think it's not unreasonable to dislike these (completely legal) practice.