zlacker

>>zdw+(OP)
tl;dr anyone? (Pretty please)

>>cpach+tM5
I've listened to only 2/3 of it, but: he promotes Crystal+Lucky (crystal is compiled) as good replacements for Ruby and Rails. The second part of his talk is about promoting a new variant of open license called PostOpen, which will require commercial users of Post Open software to pay 1% for using, 1.5% for using without sharing modifications. There is a 10% fee for worse offense. All percentages are percentages of revenue. This is partly aimed at large companies that host open source software with few modifications as a service and charge for it. Money goes to PostOpen and possibly conventional Open Source developers.

>>george+OO5
I see a low probability that anything licensed "post open" will see adoption if there is a royalty owed for it.

>>johneb+A86
Imagine the business decision of selecting between a post-open licensed ware and BSD licensed similar functionality. In return for 1% of revenue and the hassle of an annual usage audit, you get what value in return, exactly? That is the key question.

So as a purveyor of post-open software, you must have a business proposition that closes the deal. Not impossible, but different from the way most OSS projects operate today. Your skepticism is reasonable. To separate a customer from their money, you need to provide obvious value.

It strikes me that once you take one post-open package into your stack, the incremental cost of the next N is zero. So maybe there is enough virality in that feature to drive adoption. One high-value post-open project could create a coat-tail effect.