I appreciate the effort. I'll give you my honest two cents. If you don't have thick skin, stop reading here. I'm going to be critical, and I'm going to be blunt. You can take it or leave it.
The landing page sucks. In my first impression my eyes immediately darted to the animated graphics/webms. The text reads like it was written by AI with the sentences in triplets everywhere. Immediately my trust for this site (which was finicky at first) has already gone down. If you can't sustain my attention in the banner, what makes me think you can sustain my attention for the app? Be direct - show me what your app does at a glance. My attention is very scarce and very expensive, don't waste it on vague niceties or depend on me to trust you on what you say other people are saying about your app. I feel like you're trying to cheat me out of own autonomy when you're selling me something (even if it's free, my time = money) that I have no idea what it does until I get to the FAQ. My 2c - put the FAQ in the very top, with the questions "Is this just another AI chatbot?" and "How does Indy fit with ADHD coaching or other support?" in order with minimized distractions. This tells me what your product is and what it isn't at face value.
>Come on. Go back to a flip phone, or make your own smartphone ecosystem. The entitlement is outrageous.
No it isn't. It's perfectly reasonable. It's my device, bought with my money, earned on my time. I didn't agree to a social contract. I bought a tool. And you're a fool if you think
>but it's the current year!
is an argument. This isn't happening because the technological cosmos demands it. It's happening because google is winding up for a monopolistic hold of the market. They seek to manipulate it for their private benefit at the expense of everyone else. If they actually push through with this, they will be broken up.
A special endpoint e.g. /about or /license that lists the terms of the AGPL and a link to the source code would suffice. That's not difficult or unreasonable at all.
Stop lying. This is FUD. It must be disregarded with extreme prejudice. It is completely, factually, unequivocally, incorrect.
You can connect to Redis using their first-party, MIT-licensed client library. You can write proprietary software using that library with no requirement whatsoever to release your software under any particular license (although of course you still have to comply with the MIT license's attribution requirements). Heck, you can even serve this software to your users. The only condition being that you you distribute the original source or your modified changes of the AGPL'd part of the software in your stack to your users under the terms of the AGPL license. Nobody said you have to open up your whole stack. That's SSPL territory.
> AGPL isn't LGPL, it infects anything that uses it over a network.
Stop lying. This is FUD. It must be disregarded with extreme prejudice. The AGPL must remain free, and anyone interacting with it over the network must receive the opportunity to obtain the original or modified versions of the AGPL'd software and that's it. Nobody said anything about opening up the entire network stack. That is SSPL territory.
> Enterprise customers can't use software under AGPL because it risks infecting their IP, so they're forced to buy an enterprise license.
This is a lie. It's FUD. And it should be disregarded with extreme prejudice. Stop it.
First and foremost, AGPL'd software must remain free. They could use it in their stack. The rule is they must point to the sources of the AGPL'd software. If they make a change to the AGPL'd software and users interact with that (even over a network) then they must disclose the changes to the AGPL'd software. That's it. They don't have to open their whole stack. That's SSPL, so stop spreading this FUD.
Second, it's not their IP. They didn't write the AGPL'd software. They must abide by its terms.
Third, even if they chose (emphasize on "chose" and not "forced") to use AGPL'd software, they could simply disclose the changes they made to it. There is little to no excuse not to. The fact is that if the software meets their needs, they have little reason not to. The AGPL exists to protect Software Freedom so if they find that objectionable it can only be concluded that they intend to harm Free Software.
> I understand that it should be fine to use an AGPL project in a commercial enterprise (without modifications, internally in backend network).
Making changes is fine too, so long as those changes are also distributed. "The source come with the binaries" is the general rule. You don't even have to open your whole stack (that is FUD), only the parts under the AGPL that you changed and only when you distribute it. Companies can and always have used these projects internally without risk.
The landing page sucks. In my first impression my eyes immediately darted to the animated graphics/webms. The text reads like it was written by AI with the sentences in triplets everywhere. Immediately my trust for this site (which was finicky at first) has already gone down. If you can't sustain my attention in the banner, what makes me think you can sustain my attention for the app? Be direct - show me what your app does at a glance. My attention is very scarce and very expensive, don't waste it on vague niceties or depend on me to trust you on what you say other people are saying about your app. I feel like you're trying to cheat me out of own autonomy when you're selling me something (even if it's free, my time = money) that I have no idea what it does until I get to the FAQ. My 2c - put the FAQ in the very top, with the questions "Is this just another AI chatbot?" and "How does Indy fit with ADHD coaching or other support?" in order with minimized distractions. This tells me what your product is and what it isn't at face value.