<story><title>Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses</title><url>https://caddyserver.com/blog/accouncing-caddy-commercial-licenses.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mholt</author><text>Thanks for your feedback. I&amp;#x27;d like to know more.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The fact that the headers aren&amp;#x27;t seen by most non-technical users is moot.&lt;p&gt;Why&amp;#x27;s that? (And even among your technical visitors, how many of them actually inspect the response headers?)&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I find this practice pretty obnoxious to the point of looking at NGINX Plus for commercial use instead.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s good to know that price isn&amp;#x27;t the bottleneck, then. Does it make any difference to know that commercially-licensed Caddy builds don&amp;#x27;t have that header?</text></item><item><author>lol768</author><text>&amp;gt; As of version 0.10.9, Caddy emits an HTTP response header, Caddy-Sponsors, which is similar to the Server header that Caddy already has, except that this one credits our sponsors who make it possible to keep Caddy free for personal use. This header cannot be removed by the Caddyfile, and its presence is required by the non-commercial EULA. This requirement is waived by the commercial license, so the header is not present in those binaries.&lt;p&gt;Really not a fan of this, guess I&amp;#x27;ll be compiling my own builds from now on.&lt;p&gt;Don&amp;#x27;t get me wrong, I think charging for commercial licenses (which come with proper support) is a good business model, but my personal site shouldn&amp;#x27;t suddenly become an advertising outlet. The fact that the headers aren&amp;#x27;t seen by most non-technical users is moot.&lt;p&gt;I find this practice pretty obnoxious to the point of looking at NGINX Plus for commercial use instead.&lt;p&gt;Edit: Here&amp;#x27;s my fork &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;WedgeServer&amp;#x2F;wedge&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;WedgeServer&amp;#x2F;wedge&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Second edit: Accusation of trademark violation within an hour of the fork, classy! &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;WedgeServer&amp;#x2F;wedge&amp;#x2F;issues&amp;#x2F;2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;WedgeServer&amp;#x2F;wedge&amp;#x2F;issues&amp;#x2F;2&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lol768</author><text>&amp;gt; Why&amp;#x27;s that? (And even among your technical visitors, how many of them actually inspect the response headers?)&lt;p&gt;I dislike this for a few reasons. Firstly, it honestly comes across as petty. I&amp;#x27;m using the server for personal reasons, it&amp;#x27;s for a non-commercial site which I don&amp;#x27;t make money off. I don&amp;#x27;t display ads, and suddenly I&amp;#x27;m now being forced to serve ads to my visitors. The medium of delivery is utterly irrelevant to me.&lt;p&gt;Secondly, it makes it more difficult to take steps to make it less obvious which web server is being used. I&amp;#x27;d do this to make it slightly more difficult for script kiddies looking to exploit recent vulnerabiltiies - not because I think security through obscurity is a good idea.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; It&amp;#x27;s good to know that price isn&amp;#x27;t the bottleneck, then. Does it make any difference to know that commercially-licensed Caddy builds don&amp;#x27;t have that header?&lt;p&gt;No. The point is, you&amp;#x27;ve annoyed someone who liked your software, used it for personal use (costing you nothing) and would&amp;#x27;ve happily recommended it to colleagues.</text></comment>
<story><title>Announcing Caddy Commercial Licenses</title><url>https://caddyserver.com/blog/accouncing-caddy-commercial-licenses.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mholt</author><text>Thanks for your feedback. I&amp;#x27;d like to know more.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The fact that the headers aren&amp;#x27;t seen by most non-technical users is moot.&lt;p&gt;Why&amp;#x27;s that? (And even among your technical visitors, how many of them actually inspect the response headers?)&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I find this practice pretty obnoxious to the point of looking at NGINX Plus for commercial use instead.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s good to know that price isn&amp;#x27;t the bottleneck, then. Does it make any difference to know that commercially-licensed Caddy builds don&amp;#x27;t have that header?</text></item><item><author>lol768</author><text>&amp;gt; As of version 0.10.9, Caddy emits an HTTP response header, Caddy-Sponsors, which is similar to the Server header that Caddy already has, except that this one credits our sponsors who make it possible to keep Caddy free for personal use. This header cannot be removed by the Caddyfile, and its presence is required by the non-commercial EULA. This requirement is waived by the commercial license, so the header is not present in those binaries.&lt;p&gt;Really not a fan of this, guess I&amp;#x27;ll be compiling my own builds from now on.&lt;p&gt;Don&amp;#x27;t get me wrong, I think charging for commercial licenses (which come with proper support) is a good business model, but my personal site shouldn&amp;#x27;t suddenly become an advertising outlet. The fact that the headers aren&amp;#x27;t seen by most non-technical users is moot.&lt;p&gt;I find this practice pretty obnoxious to the point of looking at NGINX Plus for commercial use instead.&lt;p&gt;Edit: Here&amp;#x27;s my fork &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;WedgeServer&amp;#x2F;wedge&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;WedgeServer&amp;#x2F;wedge&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Second edit: Accusation of trademark violation within an hour of the fork, classy! &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;WedgeServer&amp;#x2F;wedge&amp;#x2F;issues&amp;#x2F;2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;WedgeServer&amp;#x2F;wedge&amp;#x2F;issues&amp;#x2F;2&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>StavrosK</author><text>&amp;gt; And even among your technical visitors, how many of them actually inspect the response headers?&lt;p&gt;I find that a bit disingenuous. You can&amp;#x27;t both include annoying headers &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; argue that they aren&amp;#x27;t annoying anyone because nobody will see them. If nobody will see them, why add them in the first place?</text></comment>