3 ms·

> 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 comme

> 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.

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.