4 ms·

> If they can’t make money under these conditions, tough. They either need to start charging for the core product instead of extracting value in hidden ways, im

> If they can’t make money under these conditions, tough. They either need to start charging for the core product instead of extracting value in hidden ways, improve their own money making services so people don’t go elsewhere, or die Agreed. It is possible to have FOSS software that is not gratis. Ever heard of a business model called: 'Making something of value and charging for it'?

Taek 5y ago
You can't call your license FOSS if the code isn't entirely gratis to run and distribute. It's the first requirement defined by the OSI. It's also the only requirement that I disagree with
- fsckboy 5y ago
  > You can't call your license FOSS if the code isn't entirely gratis to run and distribute. you're introducing some confusion here: first, OSI doesn't define FOSS, just their subset of OSS; and someone can offer to sell you, and you can buy and then resell, FOSS code (both Free (GPL according to FSF et al) and Open Source (BSD, MIT, according to OSI et al)); you are simply not required to pay extra ex post for reselling. from OSI webpage https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd "1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
  - clcaev 5y ago
    This is a distinction without a difference.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      There is actually a difference. The person who wants a change can pay you, or anyone else, to implement it. Then everyone gets it, but you still get paid for it. Which is actually a sustainable business model. One corporation pays you $5000 for change A, another pays you $3500 for change B, an individual pays you $100 for small change C, you make $8600 this month and the whole world gets A, B and C. In theory you might now have corporation A waiting for someone else to pay for the change instead of paying for it themselves, but if the change to them is worth $10,000/month and waiting for somebody else to do it causes them to have to wait five years, how does the math work out for them on that?
      - warkdarrior 5y ago
        The other nice thing about OSS is that I, as the user of the software, can look across the whole labor market for a developer to add a feature I want to the OSS package, without having to rely on the original OSS developer(s). This way I can save lots of money!
  - Taek 5y ago
    Forgive me, but I don't understand the distinction here. I tried build software that cost money to run, and I had a horde of people telling me its not open source but rather "source available" because the license specified that a 20% fee needed to be paid. I don't know of any license that is widely accepted as FOSS which also requires that the developer get paid when the software is used.
    - Terretta 5y ago
      Tell the horde OSS != FOSS and also get off their entitlement horse. By opening your source you’re already in the minority contributing to common good, openly sharing your understanding of how to solve problems with code (aka IP). Making IP free is a big deal — you’re making it free to learn, understand, and advance shared knowledge. You don’t owe anyone making it free to run a business on. To head off an AWS vs. Elastic situation, where someone else offers your code as a paid service w/o compensating you and w/o releasing their in-house patches (https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/22/aws_elastic_fork/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/22/aws_elastic_fork/), consider AGPLv3: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0/ https://choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0/ See top comment on that here on HN about 8 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25834523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25834523 --- TL;DR: “How to charge for OSS”: https://www.mikeperham.com/2015/11/23/how-to-charge-for-your-open-source/ https://www.mikeperham.com/2015/11/23/how-to-charge-for-your...

Taek 5y ago

You can't call your license FOSS if the code isn't entirely gratis to run and distribute. It's the first requirement defined by the OSI. It's also the only requirement that I disagree with

fsckboy 5y ago
> You can't call your license FOSS if the code isn't entirely gratis to run and distribute. you're introducing some confusion here: first, OSI doesn't define FOSS, just their subset of OSS; and someone can offer to sell you, and you can buy and then resell, FOSS code (both Free (GPL according to FSF et al) and Open Source (BSD, MIT, according to OSI et al)); you are simply not required to pay extra ex post for reselling. from OSI webpage https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd "1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
- clcaev 5y ago
  This is a distinction without a difference.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    There is actually a difference. The person who wants a change can pay you, or anyone else, to implement it. Then everyone gets it, but you still get paid for it. Which is actually a sustainable business model. One corporation pays you $5000 for change A, another pays you $3500 for change B, an individual pays you $100 for small change C, you make $8600 this month and the whole world gets A, B and C. In theory you might now have corporation A waiting for someone else to pay for the change instead of paying for it themselves, but if the change to them is worth $10,000/month and waiting for somebody else to do it causes them to have to wait five years, how does the math work out for them on that?
    - warkdarrior 5y ago
      The other nice thing about OSS is that I, as the user of the software, can look across the whole labor market for a developer to add a feature I want to the OSS package, without having to rely on the original OSS developer(s). This way I can save lots of money!
- Taek 5y ago
  Forgive me, but I don't understand the distinction here. I tried build software that cost money to run, and I had a horde of people telling me its not open source but rather "source available" because the license specified that a 20% fee needed to be paid. I don't know of any license that is widely accepted as FOSS which also requires that the developer get paid when the software is used.
  - Terretta 5y ago
    Tell the horde OSS != FOSS and also get off their entitlement horse. By opening your source you’re already in the minority contributing to common good, openly sharing your understanding of how to solve problems with code (aka IP). Making IP free is a big deal — you’re making it free to learn, understand, and advance shared knowledge. You don’t owe anyone making it free to run a business on. To head off an AWS vs. Elastic situation, where someone else offers your code as a paid service w/o compensating you and w/o releasing their in-house patches (https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/22/aws_elastic_fork/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/22/aws_elastic_fork/), consider AGPLv3: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0/ https://choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0/ See top comment on that here on HN about 8 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25834523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25834523 --- TL;DR: “How to charge for OSS”: https://www.mikeperham.com/2015/11/23/how-to-charge-for-your-open-source/ https://www.mikeperham.com/2015/11/23/how-to-charge-for-your...