3 ms·

Mozilla needs to "rent" the browser, just like every other application or app on the market today. $5/mo, or $50/yr. They could continue to give away a version

Mozilla needs to "rent" the browser, just like every other application or app on the market today. $5/mo, or $50/yr. They could continue to give away a version that, say, doesn't allow plugins or something.

causalmodels 6y ago
Problem with a no plugin version is that I bet the user numbers would drop severely and the ecosystem would die as a result.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
Out of the question. Firefox is not Opera. It's Free* and Open Source software, and that's central to its appeal. You can't treat it as a paid-for proprietary software product. * Hopefully this doesn't need to be said, but Free in this context refers to software freedom, not to price.
- TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
  That's utter bollocks. This has been central to the debate since it started in the 90's. You absolutely can charge for Free Software, and many people have done so. I collectively paid a lot of money for boxed releases of Red Hat and SuSE back in the day, to support development. The risk, of course, is that someone else will take the codebase, and produce a free-as-in-beer version (ala White Box Linux). I say: let them. I'm willing to pay for a supported, professional version, and I have a history of doing so.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    I don't know of a single Free Software project that gets significant income from selling the software. Introducing the option of paying for Firefox would change nothing, as people would continue to download Firefox without paying, and Firefox would continue to auto-update itself without charge. People are already able to donate to Mozilla (although not directly to Firefox), if that's what they want to do. > I collectively paid a lot of money for boxed releases of Red Hat and SuSE back in the day, to support development. Right, exactly. It's essentially an optional donation, and sadly, few people choose to make optional donations. > I'm willing to pay for a supported, professional version Charging for premium support is a different idea. I'm not opposed to paid Free Software support, in principle I think it's a great idea, but I doubt it would generate much revenue.

causalmodels 6y ago

Problem with a no plugin version is that I bet the user numbers would drop severely and the ecosystem would die as a result.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

Out of the question. Firefox is not Opera. It's Free* and Open Source software, and that's central to its appeal. You can't treat it as a paid-for proprietary software product. * Hopefully this doesn't need to be said, but Free in this context refers to software freedom, not to price.

TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
That's utter bollocks. This has been central to the debate since it started in the 90's. You absolutely can charge for Free Software, and many people have done so. I collectively paid a lot of money for boxed releases of Red Hat and SuSE back in the day, to support development. The risk, of course, is that someone else will take the codebase, and produce a free-as-in-beer version (ala White Box Linux). I say: let them. I'm willing to pay for a supported, professional version, and I have a history of doing so.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  I don't know of a single Free Software project that gets significant income from selling the software. Introducing the option of paying for Firefox would change nothing, as people would continue to download Firefox without paying, and Firefox would continue to auto-update itself without charge. People are already able to donate to Mozilla (although not directly to Firefox), if that's what they want to do. > I collectively paid a lot of money for boxed releases of Red Hat and SuSE back in the day, to support development. Right, exactly. It's essentially an optional donation, and sadly, few people choose to make optional donations. > I'm willing to pay for a supported, professional version Charging for premium support is a different idea. I'm not opposed to paid Free Software support, in principle I think it's a great idea, but I doubt it would generate much revenue.