• Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    We fund the project entirely from sales of the Confluence integration.

    Just to extend the conversation, the change implements one thing, it protects our revenue in the atlassian ecosystem.

    What it does it protect the future development of the project by protecting the revenue. That’s more useful to you than the license being fully open source.

    The primary losers of this change is anyone wanting to integrate draw.io into the Atlassian ecosystem.

    I mean this does seem kind of fair. I’m not familiar with Confluence and Atlassian but it seems something mostly aimed at corporations, I’m not sure of how common it’s use is and how much is affected by this though.

    I’m okay with something being 98% open source so they can survive on the extra 2%. And I much rather specific non competes for certain platforms then broad non-commercial clauses.

    • supermarkus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean this does seem kind of fair. I’m not familiar with Confluence and Atlassian but it seems something mostly aimed at corporations

      He should just use AGPL then.

      • vzq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s substantially more restrictive than “Apache but you can’t sell it through this specific channel”, and it wouldn’t help this particular problem.

        It’s not that the knock off extensions don’t want to share their code (they probably do).

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Atlassian could sell extensions, though, they would just need to comply with the AGPL. The AGPL means that the entire platform must comply with the AGPL, so proprietary platforms couldn’t use it but in a fair “applies to everyone the same” and not “we don’t like you individually” kind of way.

  • nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Hmmm. I wonder who is making so much money off this that the project is willing to push them into forking it . . . ?

  • actually@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago
    1. None of the Work may be used in any form as part, or whole, of an integration, plugin or app that integrates with Atlassian’s Confluence or Jira products.

    its just the apache 2 license with a restriction to not sell this project on one marketplace. Can still sell the code elsewhere. Its still totally open source, and honestly Confluence is not something I would loose sleep on. Jira has been a cash cow for a long time, and I have a beef with them anyway

    • davidjgraph@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      It’s not open source, I’ve never called it open source, even before the license change. It’s a public source code project.

  • vzq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The linked post is damning as FUCK. It’s not about business. Someone’s review bruised his fragile little ego.

    Get bent.

    • Lung@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Nah he was saying he was okay with free versions of his app undercutting him before, but calling his paid version a scam caused him to reconsider the policy - threatens revenue