In defense of a third way in open software licensing
I have no problem with somebody deciding that a shareware or dual-licensing model are the best choice for their business. But it&#x27;s incredibly toxic for the people pursuing those models to muddy and contort the accepted definition of &quot;open&quot; in order to misrepresent what they are doing.<p>It&#x27;s deeply disingenuous for this blog post to use the word &quot;bullying&quot; to describe the community&#x27;s rejection of software distributed under undesirable or ill-considered terms. You can ship your code under whatever terms you want, but don&#x27;t act like users and contributors have an obligation to support you when you make choices that don&#x27;t serve their interests.