<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>Matt wrote</title><author_name>Matt (npub1l6…uj5rc)</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.now/npub1l6scds4yv7xmcsmhqnhdy9sggm520q09lvts2m5mkvecgr2mmmeqsuj5rc</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.now</provider_url><html>The license draws no distinction between who is and isn&#39;t permitted to sell the software (big or otherwise). My biggest issue with it is the reliance on the company. Such a license is a disincentive for someone else to improve their code because it&#39;s for profit and the developers can&#39;t sell the improved version. In my opinion, this probably reduces the resources that would otherwise go into the code base, even if they came from a competitor. They could also be bought out (or somehow taken over) and leave us all as bag holders if the new company decided to abandon or taint the software somehow. A competitor couldn&#39;t step in and sell us a better version.&#xA;&#xA;They aren&#39;t the only ones with such a model and they are more open than many other products and services. I think the problem people have is that they use the &#34;open source&#34; battle cry when, historically, that&#39;s meant FOSS. Some people have tried to change that culture and there&#39;s natural resistance. They should call it &#34;source available&#34; because that&#39;s what it actually is culturally.&#xA;&#xA;I understand WHY they did this, but it&#39;s antithetical to FOSS (what most think of as open source) and I would have no interest in contributing to a for profit (I have no issue with profit) codebase (as an unpaid &#34;open source&#34; contributor) that I&#39;m not allowed to sell myself. I think more people would work on it if that wasn&#39;t the case, but that&#39;s speculation. They chose to get pissed at people for doing what their own license permitted.&#xA;&#xA;As for the hardware, I&#39;ve had two different models fail within a year of purchase. I&#39;ve used some of their competitors (those they&#39;ve attacked) products without issue for years. The company, or at least some people in it, have piss poor attitudes that many people don&#39;t like. I&#39;ve found myself in that boat as a former customer. Their support team is great though. They sent new devices. I want to be fair here.&#xA;&#xA;Something like nostr:nprofile1qqs09jtvjlmyrxjn37zv70a89csegcz7rpyqjmnw29cveedhv7vagqqpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uq3zamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0x9u2rf , although imperfect, embodies the Bitcoin and open source ethos much better, in my opinion.</html></oembed>