• Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    98·
    26 days 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.orgEnglish
      193·
      26 days 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.worldEnglish
        25·
        26 days 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.worldEnglish
          2·
          26 days 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.