What kind of tasks are you using them for?
My server, my raspberry pi in my house, my desktop and my phone all run an instance, with my server hosting a Mosca MQTT which they all use to send messages between.
My server runs anything web-facing, so the web-hooks and random API projects. The PI does things like Wake-on-lan the Desktop, working with Alexa (https://flows.nodered.org/node/node-red-contrib-alexa-home) and acting as a pi-hole. The Desktop listens for things like shutdown commands (from Alexa) and other commands to do things.
All together Node-Red just gives me the flexability to do everything at the "right" scope. The project is also cute as hell, just look at knolleary's response here: https://github.com/node-red/node-red/issues/719
you are running it with termux?
Homeassistant on ODroidC4
Raspberry Pi controlling my chicken coop in barn
Docker 1, not sure what it does anymore
Docker 2, used to run chicken coop, has a bunch of legacy stuff I don't want to move, like my discord firewall connection to block/allow kids Internet and kids pi-hole
Docker 3, fresh setup to standardize my data collection via MQTT to influxDB and Ignition Maker Edition
Raspberrypi at cousins restaurant, monitors temps, send alerts to discord and POS printers, runs the door dingers out speakers, different per door and volume changes by time of day/day of week
Docker on resturant camera server, don't think it does anything really
RaspberryPi at resturant in the shed, watches the freezer temp and building temp, was going to watch power and the door also, never got around to it
Raspberrypi at Buddies shop, watches his boiler temps
Docker at buddies house, collects the shop boiler data and pushes to influxdb for Grafana, I think, I may have bypassed that part of it
I agree about the problem: it's hard to run a business supporting a project if a competitor can come along and resell their code without any compensation.
The commons clause says a company can't sell "a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software."
I like the idea that a company could create a plugin that works with existing open source software and then sell that. I like the idea of creating a framework that lots of people can add plugins for, because I could make my living offering a few handy plugins for it and I don't have a problem if others are also making a living selling their own plugins. In principle, it makes a lot of sense.
I'm not clear if it's kosher for me to write product X that's using a lot of Apache licensed software, but to which I've added the Commons Clause.
And it generally seems problematic... Suppose a company sinks a decent amount of effort into some widgets they add to a commons clause licensed software, but only 10% of customers really use the widgets. Are they in violation of the license?
This description of the commons clause really irks me:
> if you just change the software name or few parts in the code, then you are not allowed to commercially use it without contacting the authors. However, if you modify it to a larger extent, then you are allowed to commercially use it without contacting the original developers.
Relative terms like "larger extent" scares away lawyers, and even anyone remotely used to legalese. You don't want more uncertainties and subjective classification than necessary when you're talking about something this important.
What then happens is: many of the projects are not picked up by competitors or corporations, they're not improved, and they die out, just like a completely closed source, proprietary project would have.
Open source is a way to boost the collaboration and success chance of your project. I think you either go with it, or you don't. I don't see that this solves any problems in such a way that it's worth it.
I am the creator & CEO of n8n. If anybody has any questions simply ask. Happy to answer!
But I think you will get a lot of demand for including this product in various workflows in an integrated way. Are you planning on releasing an API license, or some such?
"Hey, Honey! Watch the lights change when it rains!"
However professionally, things like Zapier are very popular. Our marketing and operations teams love them because they can build semi automated processes without time from engineers. Often it's connecting spreadsheets, ticketing systems, customer support systems, etc.
It feels nice to have these things under the control of engineering teams, but really it's unlikely they'll add value, and I think these services are pretty handy in so many cases.
I pay for IFTTT Pro, but I still use Huginn for things that IFTTT can't do, and I highly recommend it.
I've tried Node-Red and while it can definitely do the job, I couldn't get along with it.
Example - https://pipedream.com/@/p_G6C6akB/
Edit: the article has since been updated
They are free to choose whatever license works for them but this reference to Apache 2.0 is problematic.
I am curios as I read some resources about various OSS licenses and after I was thinking that Apache 2.0 license is a good one.
I remember that I read some things about mixing Apache 2.0 with other restrictions (like Commons Clause in this context) and a lot of debates about the wording of such mix.
> Fair-Code Automation with n8n.io