3 ms·
The OP said they're happy to pay for it. Open source doesn't necessarily imply zero cost.
by blowski 10y ago
The OP said they're happy to pay for it. Open source doesn't necessarily imply zero cost.
- dewiz 10y agoactually: >> Just please consider making it free software for all of us
- blowski 10y ago> I wish the Sublime Text people open sourced their code. I'd _buy_ it from them in that event. (Emphasis is mine) I took that to mean the OP wanted it to be "free as in freedom" not "free as in beer".
- Biganon 10y agoFree software doesn't imply gratuity (and neither does open source)
- pjmlp 10y agoHow many GNU/Linux users pay for their distributions?
- gravypod 10y agoI'd pay for a distribution if it was better then free (cost) software. For instance, if Apple decided today "Hey why not just make OSX a set of applications, a window manager, and a desktop environment for Linux and make it free software." I'd pay for it. I'd pay the 100 bucks because no one really does UX better then Apple.
- ternaryoperator 10y ago>Open source doesn't necessarily imply zero cost. While it's true you can charge for your OSS product, all OSS licenses allow the recipient to distribute the source code (and the built binaries) at no cost. So, OSS does imply free, even if it doesn't mandate it.
- baldfat 10y agoThe source code not compiled code.