3 ms·
Since charging for support is a common "business model" with OSS, you're implying that the incentives are wrong with OSS in general. Counterpoint: You know and
by xtho 16y ago
Since charging for support is a common "business model" with OSS, you're implying that the incentives are wrong with OSS in general.
Counterpoint: You know and can use the code before you pay anything. If you decide to prefer a certain library over another, this decision is based on real-world experience with that library. This decision might imply that you pay for support later on -- where support sometimes means implementing requested features.
- jules 16y agoYes, the market forces to make the library easier to use clash with the forces to make it hard to use. You can't make it super hard to use, because then nobody will choose to use your library. You can't make it too easy either. Fortunately the way humans are wired makes it relatively easy to get out of this trap: feature lists. Humans love long feature lists. You can add a lot of complexity without scaring people off. > you're implying that the incentives are wrong with OSS in general Yes, I am implying that for code that isn't developed for use by the company itself, or by non commercial programmers. This is very unfortunate, but whether you like OSS does not (or should not) change this. I have been thinking about ways of avoiding this, but so far I have not found a model. What I want is a business model where: 1. The programmers do what they love and do best: coding, not support 2. The primary activity (programming) brings money in, not some secondary activity 3. Good libraries should earn more money 4. The code is open source A dual licensing model like Qt seems like the only way.