3 ms·
> That would explicitly go against Mozilla's goal of having an open web. A paywall for such a fundamental resource would not be a good thing. It doesn't have t
by ary 6y ago
> That would explicitly go against Mozilla's goal of having an open web. A paywall for such a fundamental resource would not be a good thing.
It doesn't have to. The content could remain out in the open.
Although you are correct in that I am suggesting a paywall there are other ways this could work:
- Subscribers could set MDN project priorities in terms of which technologies get focus, topic expansion, expanded example code, etc.
- Early access to incomplete documentation could be given to subscribers.
- Issues with documentation or example code coming from subscribers could get priority treatment.
- Offline versions of the documentation could be subscriber exclusive.
The bottom line is that a tragedy of the commons situation needs to be avoided. Is a paywall really worse than letting bit-rot settle in on the existing MDN content?
- ChrisSD 6y agoSome of the beneficiaries of MDN are amongst the biggest companies in tech. They can afford to spare some loose change if need be. There's no need to lockout the poor teenagers who are wanting to explore web tech for themselves.
- burkaman 6y agoI would also pay for it for nothing extra at all. Give paying members a special icon on the MDN discourse or something. Maybe a "Sponsored By" page you can get your name on if you want it there. I pay for non-profit news that is free to all, I pay for some apps that have basically identical free versions. Please take my money! Offering a free product doesn't mean you're not allowed to ask for support.