4 ms·

Sad and similar response from both of them, ie "you shouldnt need money" This is a major failure of free and open source, not having a business plan at all whi

by antocv 6y ago

Sad and similar response from both of them, ie "you shouldnt need money" This is a major failure of free and open source, not having a business plan at all while those who do have a business plan, Google, AWS, Microsoft are reeking in the billions in profit from the free labor provided by foss-developers. Why cant developers of the software (say coreutils) make profits on it? Why cant developers put constraints on the softwares usage, ie you arent allowed to use it unless you pay. Pay to buy software freedoms model. Meanwhile, Microsoft/Google is using the same software to make a profit and it says to its customers "pay monthly to be allowed to use this foss". Thats all fine. Strange.

DethNinja 6y ago
But this is something open source developers choose, no? They can revise the licenses to ask for licensing fee for companies larger than 1000 employees and let rest of the people use it for free. If I ever develop an open source software, I’ll definitely ask for tiered licensing cost, something like redisdesktop.com.
open-source-ux 6y ago
"This is a major failure of free and open source" I agree. So many developers would simply like to sell their open source product so customers can run the product themsleves. It's simply impossible. It's ironic that so many SaaS businesses are built on open source - a model that gives users even less control. My recommendation is for developers to consider the 'source-only' option: you charge customers for your product and provide the source code. The code is not open source, but it still gives your customer flexibility to adapt the product to fit their needs. There are successful examples of independent developers making a full-time living using this model, some even publish their source code on GitHub but rely on the honesty of their customers to not redistribute the code (examples include Kirby CMS and Craft CMS). By the way, the GNU Project (supported by the Free Software Foundation) has never updated their advice on selling open source software to reflect reality. They still advise developers to charge for support or documentation (deeply unpopular with developers and customers). Or charging for distribution of software. This might have made sense in an era of software CDs and dial-up internet but make no sense in a era of broadband and GitHub: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

by antocv 6y ago

DethNinja 6y ago

But this is something open source developers choose, no? They can revise the licenses to ask for licensing fee for companies larger than 1000 employees and let rest of the people use it for free. If I ever develop an open source software, I’ll definitely ask for tiered licensing cost, something like redisdesktop.com.

open-source-ux 6y ago

"This is a major failure of free and open source" I agree. So many developers would simply like to sell their open source product so customers can run the product themsleves. It's simply impossible. It's ironic that so many SaaS businesses are built on open source - a model that gives users even less control. My recommendation is for developers to consider the 'source-only' option: you charge customers for your product and provide the source code. The code is not open source, but it still gives your customer flexibility to adapt the product to fit their needs. There are successful examples of independent developers making a full-time living using this model, some even publish their source code on GitHub but rely on the honesty of their customers to not redistribute the code (examples include Kirby CMS and Craft CMS). By the way, the GNU Project (supported by the Free Software Foundation) has never updated their advice on selling open source software to reflect reality. They still advise developers to charge for support or documentation (deeply unpopular with developers and customers). Or charging for distribution of software. This might have made sense in an era of software CDs and dial-up internet but make no sense in a era of broadband and GitHub: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html