3 ms·
You're probably asking the wrong question. When you oppose "open source" to "free", the term "free" is usually not used in the sense of "free beer" but in the s
by stewbrew 9y ago
You're probably asking the wrong question. When you oppose "open source" to "free", the term "free" is usually not used in the sense of "free beer" but in the sense of the free software movement, since open source software isn't necessarily "free".
When it comes to monetization, you might want to ask, what exactly people are willing to pay for -- the right to install % use the software, to modify the software, to get support etc. -- for what type of software.
- ggurgone 9y agoExactly I think most of the times people want free software, as you said the open aspect is for the ones who want transparency, do security audits, modify etc. I wonder though if open but not free (can contribute but not fork) is sustainable or even doable. Is there a standard license type for this kind of software?
- stewbrew 9y agoOpen but not free is what Microsoft and others do/did in some projects. That's one of the reasons why Stallman is so eager to draw the line between open and free software. Example: Java's stdlib source code is open for you to read it but you're not free to modify it and redistribute it according to your likings. (A few) People pay developers of free software to get support (e.g. some libs), for professional editions (e.g. some IDEs), or to support further development (e.g. some Android apps).