3 ms·

> So you wouldn't want to support OSS, you would rather support a company. If I’m paying for it, it’s not open source. I’d rather pay a single company with a “

> So you wouldn't want to support OSS, you would rather support a company. If I’m paying for it, it’s not open source. I’d rather pay a single company with a “simple”license, than something that costs me more when someone uses a leftpad package than just writing their own. I don’t want to have to have cost decisions factor into my design at that level. Having the legal support to plan out if I’m under breach or not is expensive. One of the things I like about OSS is I can avoid that. Paying and still having that threat is the worse of both worlds. Also, unpredictable prices are really hard in my org. Having my payroll vary month to month on what’s happening is really hard. Do I pay based on when I compile? When I run? What if I want to have 10 test environments, so I pay times 10. What if I need to archive and might never run it, but need to make sure I can run it, do I pay. Etc etc. There’s a million different permutations based on project needs that vary by people. With OSS, I can clearly plan and address all these. With commercial licenses, I usually can since I get a perpetual license per seat or cpu or whatever. This new scheme would be really complex and include a lot of latent risk, and require that I’m constantly open to audit by some org. And audits are expensive to receive and support. No thanks, I’ll just skip using it and use OSS versions.

hnedeotes 6y ago
It's open source except if you're profiting for it. I don't know if my english is rudimentary or something. No, you would pay per month, it would be automated. We could throw it on the block chain, or have an AI calculate it. If you never run it you never run it, if it's part of your business backup plan you pay it. With OSS for sure, you just go 0$ monthly payments, most straightforward payment plan ever, can't argue with that. > I usually can since I get a perpetual license per seat or cpu or whatever. Well, subscriptions are the future.
- prepend 6y ago
  > Well, subscriptions are the future. I hope not. Subscriptions for software are a pain and something I try to avoid.
  - hnedeotes 6y ago
    Me too :)
phillipcarter 6y ago
> If I’m paying for it, it’s not open source. Open source and free are two separate things. There are many projects out there that require a license for commercial use of the software because it's an attempt to make the project more sustainable. Don't be surprised if more and more projects go down this route. The current model of giving corporations big freebies to make lots of money off of, and then often getting no financial or developer support for that, isn't sustainable and there's a massive burnout problem because of that. Times are good now, but just wait until a few things in your core infrastructure don't get patched or worse, they get archived, because the maintainer is tired of spending evenings fixing your problems for free.
- prepend 6y ago
  > Open source and free are two separate things. When I use the term open source, I mean “OSI license” as that’s what I think is most important. That means free. Projects are free to do whatever they want, and choosing a closed source license that’s not free is their prerogative. More power to them. I probably will never buy anything from them, but I harbor no ill will. But when it comes to supporting OSS, I’ll do it as I’ve been for the past few decades; using and contributing to it. Note this is different than “fixing your problems for free” and I’ve funded a shitload of consulting to fix my problems with OSS. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a problem to be fixed for free. Just like it’s unreasonable to expect that I must pay certain developers to fix problems in open source. I find it funny when people say things aren’t sustainable and there are 20-50 year old projects and communities that are clearly sustainable and on multiple generations of developers. “Not sustainable for me to do it” is very different from “not sustainable.” It’s ok that not everyone who wants to make a living doing something can’t afford to do it, that’s not a problem we need to solve as a society.

hnedeotes 6y ago

It's open source except if you're profiting for it. I don't know if my english is rudimentary or something. No, you would pay per month, it would be automated. We could throw it on the block chain, or have an AI calculate it. If you never run it you never run it, if it's part of your business backup plan you pay it. With OSS for sure, you just go 0$ monthly payments, most straightforward payment plan ever, can't argue with that. > I usually can since I get a perpetual license per seat or cpu or whatever. Well, subscriptions are the future.

prepend 6y ago
> Well, subscriptions are the future. I hope not. Subscriptions for software are a pain and something I try to avoid.
- hnedeotes 6y ago
  Me too :)

phillipcarter 6y ago

> If I’m paying for it, it’s not open source. Open source and free are two separate things. There are many projects out there that require a license for commercial use of the software because it's an attempt to make the project more sustainable. Don't be surprised if more and more projects go down this route. The current model of giving corporations big freebies to make lots of money off of, and then often getting no financial or developer support for that, isn't sustainable and there's a massive burnout problem because of that. Times are good now, but just wait until a few things in your core infrastructure don't get patched or worse, they get archived, because the maintainer is tired of spending evenings fixing your problems for free.

prepend 6y ago
> Open source and free are two separate things. When I use the term open source, I mean “OSI license” as that’s what I think is most important. That means free. Projects are free to do whatever they want, and choosing a closed source license that’s not free is their prerogative. More power to them. I probably will never buy anything from them, but I harbor no ill will. But when it comes to supporting OSS, I’ll do it as I’ve been for the past few decades; using and contributing to it. Note this is different than “fixing your problems for free” and I’ve funded a shitload of consulting to fix my problems with OSS. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a problem to be fixed for free. Just like it’s unreasonable to expect that I must pay certain developers to fix problems in open source. I find it funny when people say things aren’t sustainable and there are 20-50 year old projects and communities that are clearly sustainable and on multiple generations of developers. “Not sustainable for me to do it” is very different from “not sustainable.” It’s ok that not everyone who wants to make a living doing something can’t afford to do it, that’s not a problem we need to solve as a society.