4 ms·
We should really pay for open-source. The FSF has a page saying it’s correct to charge before delivering OSS software (and the user can redistribute the softwar
by laurent92 6y ago
We should really pay for open-source. The FSF has a page saying it’s correct to charge before delivering OSS software (and the user can redistribute the software with OSS license).
We could charge access to Debian repositories for example. For example one repo could have bugfixes, and the broader audience could have a 1-year-old repo. Sure your can build from source, get a zip from a torrent, or find someone who hosts a free mirror of the paid repo, but as a company it’s much easier to get it from the official source, for security compliance. (Btw I’ve always said I’d be happy to spend $200 per year per employee for a desktop OS of macOS quality, so probably much less for our servers).
This would offer price discrimination:
- Free for individuals who want to spin off a small website,
- Paid when you need to prove compliance to security regulations,
- Developments still go to the pool of mankind’s marvels, instead of being locked with a commercial license and dying with the company,
- Customer can still fork or fix a bug themselves by building from source.
- Aldo_MX 6y agoI agree with your point that we should look for a way to pay FOSS maintainers for their time, but my point was that Linux repos are not free of spyware naming the version of Unity that sent what you typed to Amazon Shopping as an example. The line that separates legitimate features and spyware is blurry, especially when a bad default ends up leaking information of the user.