3 ms·

Why not just release proprietary software if you want funding for your work? Selling licenses for using software is one of the easiest ways to fund software dev

Why not just release proprietary software if you want funding for your work? Selling licenses for using software is one of the easiest ways to fund software development since 1980. Customers have more respect for companies with straightforward licensing plans, and well-funded software can offer customers high levels of technical support. People know they get what they pay for, so no need to be afraid to charge users for your quality work.

cycloptic 7y ago
Free software means freedom, not price. There isn't any reason you can't offer your users freedom as well as a quality paid product -- selling warranties, support, and licensing exceptions are all valid business models regardless.
- streetcat1 7y ago
  There is, the more money you make the better the product will be. Opensource goes AGAINST quality software: 1. Selling warranties - the better the product the less there is a need for a warranty. 2. Selling support - the better the product, the less there is a need for support. 3. Licensing exception - not sure what that is. Again, open source today is : 1) Competitive strategy used by big companies against rival - for example kubernetes and its eco-system as a strategy of google against AWS. 2) Bait and switch - also known as open core. For example redis or hashicorp. I will open source a "community" edition to increase adaptation, but all the useful features are behind a wall. I think it was mongo CEO who actually stated that in an interview.
  - cycloptic 7y ago
    I don't believe in the mythical perfect software which has no bugs and which requires no warranty or support. You can't write complex pieces of software without requiring these things. By licensing exception I mean a dual-licensing sales scheme. I agree "open source" is mostly a corporate bait-and-switch which is why I focus more on the "free as in free speech" aspect.
    - streetcat1 7y ago
      Thanks. My point is that I want to create as high quality software as I can, and decrease support to zero. I want to get paid for doing tests. I want to add fault tolerant mechanism to mask failures,etc. However, if my pay is based on support, I have an internal conflict. There is something to be said about code review (which was the original Linus argument). However, I should not expect quality reviews from non paid developers.
      - cycloptic 7y ago
        Someone has to maintain those tests. Those qualify as "support". The idea behind code review isn't that amateur developers are going to do it, but that other companies can independently pay someone.
  - z3ncyberpunk 7y ago
    Closed source is the quality issue. Competition is an artificial driver of innovation which actually just leads to fragmentation and lower quality across the board. The fact that higher pay leads to better quality is only a stipulation of our current societal culture and the problems inherent to it. As a global culture, our entire value system is broken from top to bottom in order to benefit a privileged few.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

cycloptic 7y ago

Free software means freedom, not price. There isn't any reason you can't offer your users freedom as well as a quality paid product -- selling warranties, support, and licensing exceptions are all valid business models regardless.

streetcat1 7y ago
There is, the more money you make the better the product will be. Opensource goes AGAINST quality software: 1. Selling warranties - the better the product the less there is a need for a warranty. 2. Selling support - the better the product, the less there is a need for support. 3. Licensing exception - not sure what that is. Again, open source today is : 1) Competitive strategy used by big companies against rival - for example kubernetes and its eco-system as a strategy of google against AWS. 2) Bait and switch - also known as open core. For example redis or hashicorp. I will open source a "community" edition to increase adaptation, but all the useful features are behind a wall. I think it was mongo CEO who actually stated that in an interview.
- cycloptic 7y ago
  I don't believe in the mythical perfect software which has no bugs and which requires no warranty or support. You can't write complex pieces of software without requiring these things. By licensing exception I mean a dual-licensing sales scheme. I agree "open source" is mostly a corporate bait-and-switch which is why I focus more on the "free as in free speech" aspect.
  - streetcat1 7y ago
    Thanks. My point is that I want to create as high quality software as I can, and decrease support to zero. I want to get paid for doing tests. I want to add fault tolerant mechanism to mask failures,etc. However, if my pay is based on support, I have an internal conflict. There is something to be said about code review (which was the original Linus argument). However, I should not expect quality reviews from non paid developers.
    - cycloptic 7y ago
      Someone has to maintain those tests. Those qualify as "support". The idea behind code review isn't that amateur developers are going to do it, but that other companies can independently pay someone.
- z3ncyberpunk 7y ago
  Closed source is the quality issue. Competition is an artificial driver of innovation which actually just leads to fragmentation and lower quality across the board. The fact that higher pay leads to better quality is only a stipulation of our current societal culture and the problems inherent to it. As a global culture, our entire value system is broken from top to bottom in order to benefit a privileged few.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]