I don't really understand the controversy; there are plenty of licenses an author can choose that restricts commercial use of a project. It feels a bit dishonest to release something under a permissive license and then be upset when someone uses your stuff well within the ways you said is perfectly ok.

▲

theturtletalks 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So many proprietary companies are built on the back of open-source software. Yes, there is no legal responsibility for Warp to donate to Allacritty. But there is a moral obligation. It's not hard to see open-source maintainers and enthusiasts looking at Warp with skepticism. I didn't know that and will be uninstalling Warp, though I stopped using it months ago.

▲

dpe82 an hour ago | parent [-]

If someone expects to be compensated for their work they should be upfront about it. IMHO it's dishonest/immoral to freely give something away with no expressed expectation of reciprocity and then get upset when someone doesn't reciprocate.

	▲	theturtletalks an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>> If someone expects to be compensated for their work they should be upfront about it. Definitely and the Alacritty devs have never asked for anything in return for using their software and code. It's mainly others in the community looking at a commercial company forking and then raising $50M and not even contributing. I've seen huge companies, or their higher ups, Github sponsor developers who are building code they use. It's not unheard of.