> Why not open source the app?>> Maintaining an open-source project can be a significant amount of work and I'm not going to have the time to take on such responsibilities. Furthermore, open-sourcing full products tends to result in many clones being sold directly to unsuspecting customers which is not something I want to enable.
It's strange how both of those statements are incorrect... open-sourcing a project allows for contributors to pick up some of the workload and certain licenses would prevent clones from being sold to unsuspecting customers
Contributors don't magically appear. Maintaining a community, reviewing changes, steering, etc. all take time and energy. Again, contributors don't magically appear who can do those things, who are aligned with the creator.
As someone who has worked on an open source product with a commercial version, the FAQ matches my experience. I think you're letting you're mixing up is and ought.
it doesn't, but it's a deterrent. the very fact that this app had limited commercial success is reason to believe there likely won't be "many clones", especially if they're forced to go against the license
> Why not open source the app? > > Maintaining an open-source project can be a significant amount of work and I'm not going to have the time to take on such responsibilities. Furthermore, open-sourcing full products tends to result in many clones being sold directly to unsuspecting customers which is not something I want to enable.
It's strange how both of those statements are incorrect... open-sourcing a project allows for contributors to pick up some of the workload and certain licenses would prevent clones from being sold to unsuspecting customers