5 ms·

I am not from legal, but too me there the problem would be: you use a product, but you dont 'buy' it, you 'donate' to the guy who made it, who is also 'super ni

I am not from legal, but too me there the problem would be: you use a product, but you dont 'buy' it, you 'donate' to the guy who made it, who is also 'super nice' and fixes some stuff about the product you need. This looks like a work/service/purchase agreement in disguise. Actually you dont want that to be possible.

cageface 6y ago
From what I gathered the problem is often that most corporate legal departments are overworked so small donations to open source projects are just never high priority enough to displace other tasks they have in their queue.
- pabs3 6y ago
  Would making them large donations solve the problem there? ;)
dalke 6y ago
I tried commercial FOSS development. An older version was available at no cost, the newest version cost money. Both were MIT licensed. If you were a company, and wanted to pay me, it was easy - send me a PO and you would get the source code to the newer, faster, more capable version. Nothing in that looks like a donation. I did it this way precisely because giving someone money for being "super nice" and distributing no-cost FOSS software DOES NOT FIT with the accounting mechanisms of most companies. Even with this, I was at one pro-FOSS workshop. One of the presenters described how they used my no-cost version and how great it was. (Did I know they used the software? Not until that day.) I pointed out that many FOSS projects are underfunded. Their response was that it was so hard to get their company to fund FOSS projects (along lines that cageface observed). I pointed out that it's really easy to pay for my project. They still never bought a copy or support contract. I came out of that workshop convinced that the primary reason companies like FOSS is because it's generally available at no cost. Not because it reduces long-term dependencies on external parties, not because it improves software development methodologies, and not because it's an essential liberty. But simply because of the cost.
- andi999 6y ago
  Getting a new supplier in our ERP system is a nightmare. Also for each order three quotations needed from different suppliers...
  - dalke 6y ago
    One of my customers' ERP system is a nightmare so they outsource many purchases to a reseller. I didn't understand what was going on when the reseller contacted me, and ended up being added as a supplier to my customer's ERP. I then got paid twice. After 9 months and multiple inquiries I still don't know how to give them their money back!
- sokoloff 6y ago
  That cost is measured in dollars and in friction, not just dollars. There’s no software that I won’t pay $25 for if it helps my work. There’s some software that I’ll pay $100 for. It’s again difficult in the $100.01 to $1000 range and opens up again over that (only if the value is there of course). It’s fair to assume that slightly different purchasing approvals are needed in the buckets above. In all cases, I’m making an RoI calculation and a return-on-effort calculation. $0 and not AGPL hits a sweet spot on both RoI and RoE.
  - dalke 6y ago
    The software was in the $25K+ range. It's a rather different market, and different sales techniques -- made harder because my FOSS-only distribution model meant I couldn't distribute an evaluation version with more restrictive licensing. The non-FOSS pricing is cheaper, but still in the $10K range. My last sale took about 15 months from start to finish. FWIW, I got strong feedback that people wouldn't buy it with GPL licensing. It's library software designed to be embedded wherever you need it, so I can understand that.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "I came out of that workshop convinced that the primary reason companies like FOSS is because it's generally available at no cost. Not because it reduces long-term dependencies on external parties, not because it improves software development methodologies, and not because it's an essential liberty. But simply because of the cost." This was, or at least should have been, known from the beginning; I've certainly been saying it since the '90s. When people were proclaiming FOSS to be "free as in beer and free as in speech", it was pretty clear that most people stopped listening after the first four words.

cageface 6y ago

From what I gathered the problem is often that most corporate legal departments are overworked so small donations to open source projects are just never high priority enough to displace other tasks they have in their queue.

pabs3 6y ago
Would making them large donations solve the problem there? ;)

dalke 6y ago

I tried commercial FOSS development. An older version was available at no cost, the newest version cost money. Both were MIT licensed. If you were a company, and wanted to pay me, it was easy - send me a PO and you would get the source code to the newer, faster, more capable version. Nothing in that looks like a donation. I did it this way precisely because giving someone money for being "super nice" and distributing no-cost FOSS software DOES NOT FIT with the accounting mechanisms of most companies. Even with this, I was at one pro-FOSS workshop. One of the presenters described how they used my no-cost version and how great it was. (Did I know they used the software? Not until that day.) I pointed out that many FOSS projects are underfunded. Their response was that it was so hard to get their company to fund FOSS projects (along lines that cageface observed). I pointed out that it's really easy to pay for my project. They still never bought a copy or support contract. I came out of that workshop convinced that the primary reason companies like FOSS is because it's generally available at no cost. Not because it reduces long-term dependencies on external parties, not because it improves software development methodologies, and not because it's an essential liberty. But simply because of the cost.

andi999 6y ago
Getting a new supplier in our ERP system is a nightmare. Also for each order three quotations needed from different suppliers...
- dalke 6y ago
  One of my customers' ERP system is a nightmare so they outsource many purchases to a reseller. I didn't understand what was going on when the reseller contacted me, and ended up being added as a supplier to my customer's ERP. I then got paid twice. After 9 months and multiple inquiries I still don't know how to give them their money back!
sokoloff 6y ago
That cost is measured in dollars and in friction, not just dollars. There’s no software that I won’t pay $25 for if it helps my work. There’s some software that I’ll pay $100 for. It’s again difficult in the $100.01 to $1000 range and opens up again over that (only if the value is there of course). It’s fair to assume that slightly different purchasing approvals are needed in the buckets above. In all cases, I’m making an RoI calculation and a return-on-effort calculation. $0 and not AGPL hits a sweet spot on both RoI and RoE.
- dalke 6y ago
  The software was in the $25K+ range. It's a rather different market, and different sales techniques -- made harder because my FOSS-only distribution model meant I couldn't distribute an evaluation version with more restrictive licensing. The non-FOSS pricing is cheaper, but still in the $10K range. My last sale took about 15 months from start to finish. FWIW, I got strong feedback that people wouldn't buy it with GPL licensing. It's library software designed to be embedded wherever you need it, so I can understand that.
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "I came out of that workshop convinced that the primary reason companies like FOSS is because it's generally available at no cost. Not because it reduces long-term dependencies on external parties, not because it improves software development methodologies, and not because it's an essential liberty. But simply because of the cost." This was, or at least should have been, known from the beginning; I've certainly been saying it since the '90s. When people were proclaiming FOSS to be "free as in beer and free as in speech", it was pretty clear that most people stopped listening after the first four words.