3 ms·
From no more than the 15 comments posted I'm able to establish that: 1. This component is very high quality and already in use by major businesses: New York Ti
by james_in_the_uk 8y ago
From no more than the 15 comments posted I'm able to establish that:
1. This component is very high quality and already in use by major businesses: New York Times, The Guardian, Zoho...
2. This component is shepherded by a developer who is very well regarded in the open source community.
3. That developer has only received ~ 50% of his monthly target of Eur 5k.
Something doesn't add up.
- Nokinside 8y agoIt's typical for small open source teams. It's hard to make money with open source. My suggestion wold be to use AGPLv3 license and sell commercial licenses to improve the income situation.
- Investogician 8y agoFor a front-end library like this, wouldn't regular GPLv3 do the same thing? I thought AGPL was mainly for server stuff.
- pookeh 8y agoYou can have a GPL-licensed SaaS that charges you for stuff
- throw2016 8y agoAmazon, Google and hundreds of others show otherwise. They have tens of billions of dollars in revenue from open source. Open source is probably supporting revenue in the hundreds of billions now. However without closing the gap between the creators and monetizers this model can't sustain itself and the party will eventually crash.
- Nokinside 8y agoAs I said, I was referring to small companies. Amazon or Google don't open source the main software they use make money from. Only supporting infrastructure software and research. For a small company it's possible to open source the main product if you use GPL or AGPL.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- antaviana 8y agoIt's just human nature. Humans greatly enjoy outsmarting other humans. Humans in these major businesses are simply outsmarting the developer and greatly enjoy doing so. That's why a donation-based business model does not work.