And of course changing the license is always annoying as you did not make an informed decision when you chose the license. You also never know if they might change the pricing model again.
I know a few people who will likely have to stop using CockroackDB because the license costs would be higher than their entire revenue.
Microsoft even donates regularly to things like GitHub Sponsorships and the major open source foundations/conservatories, so even in the case of "too much traffic" it isn't like Microsoft is trying to shirk that bill, even though it is very easy to accuse them of that.
You mean the same way MongoDB and many other open source products went commercial?
It has nothing to do with .NET. It happens with all languages and all platforms.
Businesses and developers profit from foss software, but the chances that anything, be it money or support via contributions, is given back are low. I don't think that it is desirable to go closed source to solve that issue, but I also don't have a good solution at hand.
Not everyone is employed at big corp, with enough time to keep FOSS tooling as side gig.
Maybe if everyone gave back as they expect to be paid themselves, this wouldn't be a common thing.
Turns out shareware and demos was a better business model than FOSS giving everything away, unless one is building a portfolio for being hired.
They're not explicit for how long this "transition period" will be, it sounds like a year.
We've seen this before with IdentityServer, and many other examples where maintainers switched to a commercial license, leaving behind a wake of businesses who aren't willing to tie themselves to a commercial license and would rather turn a blind eye to dwindling support.
IdendityServer4 was promised security updates until Nov 2022. Here we are over 2 years later and it's still a popular package.
And that's a security-critical part of the application! Some people even still go back to the pre-AGPL version of iTextSharp for PDF writing, and that switch was 15+ years ago.
>Patches and updates to v8 through at least the end of 2026. That's 1.75 years from now, giving developers plenty of runway to plan their migration to v9.
Doesn't really matter. For big, distributed apps at work I use Keycloak or something similar, maybe an own authorization service built on OPAL. For small apps I either use an authentication and authorization library I built myself or, if I don't need something too fancy I use Identity (the one MS provides).
The huge charm of MassTransit _was_ that it was OSS.
AutoMapper is something you only use sparingly because genius mappings take a genius mind to understand, at which you can rather map manually than type any comments.
And, as you say, MediatR is eassily replaced because it is intentionally a slim library.
>As stated above, the transition plan includes ongoing patches and updates for v8. Developers can continue to use v8 during the transition, and won't be forced to upgrade to v9. To take advantage of new features and enhancements, developers would need to upgrade to the licensed version.
>Patches and updates to v8 through at least the end of 2026. That's 1.75 years from now, giving developers plenty of runway to plan their migration to v9. That's longer than the support window for some .NET versions!
It's a bad look to have a FAQ where you don't actually answer your own question.
All the best with commercial endevours.
I'm not angry with the authors, they have all the rights to go commercial if this is what they want. But I can't help but feel sad about it.
Hard agree. If you want to turn a profit from your project, make it commercial from the beginning. I have no problems with commercial tools or products, but I do have a problem with starting something as open source, gaining adoption, then changing the license later on.
It's the same BS behavior from SaaS we love to call out, when companies make a generous free tier, get users locked in, then pull the rug.
Should the community help out and contribute back to FOSS projects they use? Absolutely, but at the same time, they are not obligated to either and if a dev has a problem with that, then don't release it as FOSS.
I've published a few small tools for sysadmins, and I never expected any kind of contribution back whether monetary or otherwise, and that's OK. I wrote them for myself, and will maintain them for myself as long as they are useful to me. Others are free to use them and I don't expect anything in return.
In fact, in the early days folks would get money out of distributions like Walnut Creek CDs.
Everyone talks about morality, what about the morality of feeling good getting that check at the end of the month in consulting services, without giving a dime to upstream?
But we have seen FluentAssertions parter with tool maker recently so I guess that's not entirely unreasonable.
As for the other bit around AutoMapper. I do my own mapping and so should you. MediatR and what it does you can implement yourself in a few hours that will cover 90% of use cases if you know what you're doing.
All in all I want less dependencies in my code. Everything is bloated to shit anyways.
.Net OSS looks more and more like a failure, while fans will incessantly reiterate it’s technically OSS it’s certainly not spiritually and if anything it’s regressed in the last 2-3 years.
The bigger project I know of follow a similar model of open core + support and I would not bat an eye if they did the same. The remaining ecosystem seems to be convenience over whatever MS is doing and IO adapters.
At this stage it’s just another nail in the coffin and I’d be wary of picking up anything other than MS packages if using .Net.
I also wonder if eroding confidence will start snowballing and bring .Net back to framework days in practice.
If anything is a good reflection of what I keep referring to you about the Microsoft image outside the traditional Microsoft shops, that posts from .NET team on social networks about how much performance is possible nowadays with .NET won't change.
Working on a polyglot agency with lots of such clients, I get to handle this problem on routinely basis.
And why another approach to market .NET is required instead of boasting about TechEmpower results.
Outside of the SV bubble .NET will continue to be one of the most productive platforms to work within, and is continuing to grow in market share. Hardly a failure.
That being said, I do see the meaning behind where OP is coming from. There is a certain, shall we say, enterprise, culture around .NET (much like Java) that hasn't caught up yet, or hasn't fully embraced the new world of open source from Microsoft.
