I know some people want to ban AI posts, but I want the opposite: ban any post until AI has looked over it and adds its own two cents based on the consensus of the entire internet & books it's trained on.
Didn't Airbyte rugpull their license to ELv2?
With consensus.tools we split things intentionally. The OSS CLI solves the single user case. You can run local "consensus boards" and experiment with policies and agent coordination without asking anyone for permission.
Anything involving teams, staking, hosted infra, or governance sits outside that core.
Open source for us is the entry point and trust layer, not the whole business. Still early, but the federation vs stadium framing is useful.
If you target developers, open source vs closed source will make a difference. For others, customers probably don't even know what GitHub is.
If your developer company gets popular you’ll be rich enough anyway. You might need to choose between screwing over your VCs by not monetising or screwing over your customers by messing around with licences.
But yourself as a founder will likely be okay as long as the tool is popular.
Startups die for a variety of reasons, even if products are popular and loved.
Community efforts should almost always be kept separate from commercial works.
The one exception occurs during product deprecation, as there is no longer commercial interest in the investors property or curatorship. =3
Having first hand experience with building multiple open source and open core dev infra companies, the advice in this article is spot on. If it is AI slop, it's still good advice.
I'd prefer comments focused on content vs. trying to Turing-test AI generated text.