Is self-hosting of the builder welcome by the maintainers?

[MOZGIII]

Disclamer:
I have partially got some info on this in a different question here: #244
But, I realized this is not really what I want to know about this project - so I have created this new, very different question.

---

So, here goes the question.

It doesn't seem like there's a lot of materials on how to do it, although it is pretty easy, and legal according to the AGPL license.

The issue that I see, it seems, if I self-host the builder and offer it for free to the "open internet" it would be harming the webstudio cloud pro business model. That seems like the team should be very much opposed to anyone doing this - but there is no clear messaging or standing on this. However, there are restrictions against this - besides the lack of instructions.

As an open source project, I'd imagine there would be a goal to build a community around it that does the builder self-hosting and works on the further improvements of this aspect - like for their own sake, as opposed to further building webstudio as a "cloud product".
So, to me, it is vibing a subtle no we don't want to self-host the builder for production. Although - it would actually be awesome if it was the opposite.

Based on these vibes, I think, as soon as someone puts any actual effort into the upstream of this project to actually facilitate fully-featured self-hosting (not necessarily for the purposes of giving it to the "open internet" - but just for added convenience of having a full turn-key self-hosted figma/webflow alternative for personal use) - the team might just switch the license and/or add restrictions.

So. The question to the maintainers: do you actually want users that self-host the builder? And why?

Awesome project btw, and no offense, let's just talk, please.

[kof]

• Self-hosting is generally meant for the user of the product, as opposed to creating a SaaS on top of the open source we have invested in and never actually participating in the development cost
• We are developing features that aren't open source to have a way to stand out, outside of our pricing and hosting, which you can't really beat. We have been debating for example if animations engine should be part of open source and for now we decided to keep it closed source commercial license
• Marketplace is not open source and marketplace items won't be part of what you are installing as open source

[MOZGIII]

• Self-hosting is generally meant for the user of the product, as opposed to creating a SaaS on top of the open source we have invested in and never actually participating in the development cost

Right, that's my thinking as well! But then, why don't you guys have a license that would disallow it?

Waiting for someone to do it and then adding those clause it not only not nice - it'd be too late. I, for one, have already obtained my source code copy under the AGPL. I don't see any custom clauses blocking making a SaaS.

Maybe I'm mistaken - and I don't say I'm good at this legal stuff - but it seems like you should alter the license.

• We are developing features that aren't open source to have a way to stand out, outside of our pricing and hosting, which you can't really beat. We have been debating for example if animations engine should be part of open source and for now we decided to keep it closed source commercial license

I saw that - there's a private submodule in the code.

Don't get me wrong - it does make sense from a business perspective.
So, this is more like a source-available product by nature at this point, rather than foss? It makes sense, but the

• Marketplace is not open source and marketplace items won't be part of what you are installing as open source

Ah, maybe that's one of the key selling point for those who consider whether to self-host or use your cloud.

I actually just now found this at the pricing page (comparisons section).

Would be nice to actually add some downsides of self-hosting right to the plan description. If you only look there, there's no indication that some features would be lacking compared to cloud-based solution - am I'm guilty of doing just that (and not only this time - I've been sizing your project a couple years now).

[kof]

Right, that's my thinking as well! But then, why don't you guys have a license that would disallow it?

There is no open source license that would disallow it. It wouldn't be ope source.

[kof]

Waiting for someone to do it and then adding those clause it not only not nice - it'd be too late. I, for one, have already obtained my source code copy under the AGPL. I don't see any custom clauses blocking making a SaaS.

Maybe I'm mistaken - and I don't say I'm good at this legal stuff - but it seems like you should alter the license.

We have a different opinion and we have people to consul with. Learn about Open Core and how other companies are doing it.

[kof]

So, this is more like a source-available product by nature at this point, rather than foss? It makes sense, but the

No, it is called Open Core.

[kof]

Would be nice to actually add some downsides of self-hosting right to the plan description.

We do have that info in the feature comparisons table.

[MOZGIII]

It seems you're trying to do what all those Open Core businesses are trying to do. In that case, you should really look after Amazon and the likes - as you can find at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model - there has been a rich history of big players doing exactly what I'm asking you about above.

So, do you plan to add restrictions to the license to prevent someone from packing this work into SaaS and offering it to the public?

[MOZGIII]

Or, imagine Webflow taking your stuff and running on it to replace their editor. That'd be top kek... But not illegal currently.

[kof]

We are aware of what you are saying. There are various options for action here. Most importantly no matter what version they would take, the velocity of development and non-open source features is what matters most. If you want to continue this discussion, feel free to DM me on discord. I think you can guess we had this type of discussions before, not exactly new t this 🤣