Hacker News Reader

Licensing only part of your software under free software licenses is a clear statement that you do not believe in software freedoms for users.

A proprietary software house that releases some free software is still a proprietary software operation.

View on HN

Somewhere else in this thread I asked for the list of licenses as I see most of these products keep the parts with the most work closed or under a license that many companies won’t touch (agpl or n2n license). It seems that almost everything is MIT; that is pretty refreshing for something like this. Check alternative solutions and you’ll find trivial parts open sourced and the hard parts proprietary or unusable in other software because of the license choice.

Kudos to the team of total.js. Who cares if they offer some paid stuff; because of the MIT license anyone can. If they don’t do it, someone else can and offer it all the same. As long as vital parts remain MIT, I cannot see how this is a proprietary software operation.

Tl;dr I agree with you, but I don’t see that being the case here

Reply on news.ycombinator.com