[eimrine]

Telegram does this by having proprietary server and allowing users to compile its own client.

Benefits: you can abuse the users, pitfalls: you can be abused by the Government.

I hate to use software where developer party considers I need some "engagement" and the fact I have installed the software at all as "adoption", for me these are clear notices that you are doing some scam.

[ruslan_talpa]

Interesting example. I was thinking about this more in the direction of "protecting the IP/investment" rather then "abuse the users" but i get your point.

With the telegram example, i don't see it very much different from a SaaS where you get to talk to an API however you want. My question was more in the space where the customer gets the entire codebase (to deploy it themselves) where just the core is closed (or proprietary with maybe source available)

would seeing the source for the core (but no rights to alter/reuse) improve your opinion as to "doing some scam"?

[eimrine]

Making a software which is going to serve you instead of me.