Yeah, and other businesses have the right to conclude that they'd rather use a full-featured open source web server than one that's crippled to create a market for the expensive proprietary version.
Of course, some people in this discussion seem to disagree - I've seen a lot of people acting as though it's somehow unfair to nginx for him to point this out to other potential nginx users or to switch to a different server rather thay paying up. It's like people here think the nginx developers have some right to bait people in with the open source version and then charge vast sums for basic features, and that anyone who isn't onboard with this scheme is greedy.
you're right, they don't owe anyone anything, but no one is saying "You MUST do what I say".
The story is clearly pointing out what appears to be a flaw, that has being patched, but won't be accepted, because of a conflict of interest. It's something to make noise over, and eventually, something to fork over.
People make noise so it doesn't come to that. Very reasonable, if you ask me.
I am not against someone deciding to ditch some software in any means they believe fit. But thinking any company should go on development according to other party's demands and otherwise asking third parties to ditch the software is nonsense.
As the article states, a patch exists which implements the functionality required by the author, so the only 'demand' is to apply that patch, hardly a monumental task.
The problem here is that Nginx developers refuse to implement a free patch which already exists for a feature easily found in the competition in order to protect their business model.
Sure, what Nginx devs do is a legitimate practice, as legitimate as the author complaining about it and proposing a change of software or a fork. I don't understand why many get so upset about it.
What are you saying 'no' to? They have a conflict of interest since they are clearly in the business of selling features. It was a statement, and saying 'you can always fork' does not refute that statement.
No it is not insensible if they start rejecting patches for needed features because they conflict with commercial goals.
If you want your patches to be upstream you should make sure they must be compatible with the upstream's goals. If you do not want to obey or play along with upstream you may become an upstream yourself or pay someone to be the upstream with your goals.
Except that danenania's comment which started this entire chain of discussion was portraying switching to software with an upstream whose goals were compatible - namely Apache - as an overreaction and somehow a betrayal of open source.
It is a reaction, one that is perfectly acceptable. However to slam Nginx because they want to sell their product is an overreaction.
Either accept that the Nginx creators can do what they want, or switch to Apache, but don't bitch about it. Whining that "X won't give me a feature for free" is ridiculous.
Likewise, forking from the mainline at the first sign of devs behaving badly is an overreaction. You don't throw out a team on the first sign of them doing something you don't like, that's crazy. There's nothing wrong with complaining about a conflict of interest. It only becomes a problem if the complaints continue, nothing changes, and no one forks. Then you and I will be telling people not to whine.
