To be a true replacement, there is at least one crucial feature missing: A LICENSE file that starts with "The MIT License (MIT)".
Nothing against "source available" but thinking to have a chance to stand in for more permissively licensed projects is very much unrealistic.
I really hope there's a model out there for OSS at least where folks can get paid.
I always wondered what if engineers had a $100/month budget to donate to OSS founders. It wouldn't cost an employer much and would be a good way to give back.
I really hope there's a model out there for OSS at least where folks can get paid.
I always wondered what if engineers had a $100/month budget to donate to OSS founders. It wouldn't cost an employer much and would be a good way to give back.
How much, monetarily, would you be willing to contribute to implement that feature?
What I am saying is, that if the elevator pitch for the project you are trying to monetize is "this is a replacement for $MIT-LICENSED-PROJECT" you will have a hard time.
The question the elevator pitch should answer first is how much this brings to the table to make me consider paying instead of just using the permissively licensed project for free.
Having to pay is clearly one drawback for some, but if you save this money by not having to develop some features or getting some support, then it may be worth it.