@cloudron @jdaviescoates @nextcloud if you are going to secure the services that means that you need to have control of the configuration. Misconfiguration is the number 1 source of data leaks.
That means that your users, that lacks the competence to deploy any maintain these services, needs to rely on you for it.
But you sell a glorified packaging, taking away the liability you would have if you were actually contracted to deliver said services.

So what separates your service from the gazillion others that do exactly the same thing and also doesn't take any legal responsibility for all the underqualified people they've helped get services running?

@qrsbrwn @nextcloud @jdaviescoates Great point. This is a big reason why you can buy a Cloudron subscription (sorry if that sounds SaaS) We actually help our users if problems arise, they are not left alone with a github issue getting stale. We can do this since this is our job. As far as we can tell our userbase is happy with that service, but it is up to them to decide if it is worth of course. Paying for something doesn't mean you cannot vet the code, which seemed to be your initial argument.

@cloudron @nextcloud @jdaviescoates that is not my initial argument. My argument is that the packaging you deliver seems to be targeting people who cannot deploy and maintain the services they want to maintain.
You do not seem to be selling hosted services or consulting services which is how I would describe running a service for someone else.
I also fail to see what makes you different from your competitors in the very saturated marketplace you are in.

I would suggest you get more transparent in regards to what you actual deliver and what one has to give up to actually use your services. It's very easy to come off as one of all the zero click installers that has been used to scam tech-fetishists for that last 25 or so years. I don't think you are one of those outfits but I would really like not having to wonder if that is the case. The key to stand out is being more transparent about what is actually delivered.

@qrsbrwn @nextcloud @jdaviescoates Thanks for your suggestions where we could improve. The existing 1-click installers are one of the main reasons why we started Cloudron, we ourselves were frustrated. Installation is just the beginning of the journey in selfhosting and not the solution for an updated, secure and reliable system. Actually most of our work goes into reliable, reproducible app updates and of course recovery in case something fails.

@cloudron @nextcloud @jdaviescoates the updates and rollback problem is the entire selling point of containers and it's good that you point that out. Could you elaborate on what actual work you do around these problems?

As for you client and the install scripts, is there a reason you chosen a non-FOSS license for them?
It seems like you like to eat the cake but not help bake it. There's no shortage of companies that wants to consume but not contribute. If your software was actually GPL I would probably have a warmer default disposition.

@qrsbrwn @nextcloud @jdaviescoates Not sure why you assume that. We do contribute back to these projects, we also help report and triage issues upstream. Sure we would like to contribute more if we have the means. We don't think the solution for a sustainable product with support is to "sell to enterprise" or "open core" to pay for the devs to create FOSS. We don't want to change the product to focus on those and hope the rest still finds it useful enough. Ask the app devs if we eat their cake.

@cloudron @nextcloud @jdaviescoates having your installer be FOSS does not bar you in any way from selling your paid services.
Also, you didn't answer why you client and installer is proprietary.
There obviously is a reason, licenses don't just appear in the repos.

@qrsbrwn @nextcloud @jdaviescoates Ah sorry for not being explicit. We believe more into source available for trust and validation reasons bundled with a business model which is sustainable to ensure continuity for users and one which does not rely on external investment or other means to pay for dev. We have seen sandstorm failing, everyone looses out.
My personal opinion: Ideally we all have the luxury to develop all this for free, but sadly at least I don't. And we have tried patreon style.

@cloudron @nextcloud @jdaviescoates no one is saying you have to change from the paid subscription model you use now just because you use a different license for the software.
Are you misunderstanding me or intentionally being evasive?
Ask IBM, SuSE or RH if you can in fact make money on delivering FOSS software in a reliable manor.

@qrsbrwn @nextcloud @jdaviescoates Then please read my previous post in this thread about the view from our side towards their enterprise focused model which we don't see a fit for our users. Also not sure what kind of company (sales teams, ...) you envision we are. We care deeply for non-enterprise. Those have to be enabled to selfhost, an enterprise can just hire an IT team for that task.

@cloudron @nextcloud @jdaviescoates yes and nothing in that explains the actual license you choose to use for your code.
It seems all you will offer is hand wavery while trying to avoid the subject.
Choosing a FOSS license does not impact your ability to have a subscription service.

@qrsbrwn @nextcloud @jdaviescoates with all we have discussed here and the context we have established through arguments, you might want to consider the practical implications on choosing a license and then apply that to your request about insisting on a specific license scheme and the actual motivation to do so. Things are not black or white, likely somewhere in the middle and it has to benefit the user for real through being sustainable in context.

@cloudron @nextcloud @jdaviescoates I have never said that issues are black and white. Making proprietary software to deliver FOSS software does not give any bonus points, especially when being evasive.
In the end you want me to share my toys but your toys are yours alone.
You talk about wanting to help people while desensitizing them to having proprietary services delivering their FOSS tools.
Helping people that don't have the will or time to get the skillset needed to actually deploy and maintain a service is doing them a disservice. Especially with the terms of service you have for your service.
I am not even a FOSS zealot, I'm just trying to find redeeming qualities in your offering. Sadly I can't.
If you have some unique selling point it hasn't been communicated to me.
Had you been more engaged in the FOSS community that would have been a quality that would made me overlook quite a few shortcomings, sadly I see no evidence of that.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!