- Posts: 635
- Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:35 am
- Location: Barnaul, Russia
JayB wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:52 pm
I'd leave the payment/license scheme as it is. Open source doesn't necessarily mean free or free-of-charge.
Absolutely, that's what I'm planning to do.
warpkanal wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:58 pm
Oh, that's interesting news. Does that mean you see no commercial sense in the filemanager or maybe you won't have enough time for further development or other intentions?
This project it huge for being developed by a single person, especially given the amount of positive feedback (in a broad definition) it brings back.
If there's a slight chance of other users' involvement deeper than like "I want the feature XYZ to be added ASAP!" - it's worth trying.
And I know for a fact that there're many developers among NC's users.
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:59 pm
mike wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:49 am
I'll open the NC's source code later this year and will gladly accept any specific suggestions about adding support for archives modification
Maybe this news is too important to be left buried in some General Discussion thread? I at least would be pretty interested in what lead to this decision and what implications arise from it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest