8 ms·

> Consider sponsoring me on Github. It means the world to me if you show your appreciation and you'll help pay the server costs. >You can also sponsor me by ge

> Consider sponsoring me on Github. It means the world to me if you show your appreciation and you'll help pay the server costs. >You can also sponsor me by getting a Digital Ocean VPS. With this referral link you'll get $100 credit for 60 days. Asking people for money right at the top and putting referral links to help pay for server costs does not generate much confidence that selling GPL software is a viable business model.

Blackthorn 5y ago
It's a default paragraph on literally all of his/her blog posts.
toastal 5y ago
Patronage is like the new normal for supporting people creating things online. My only rub is I don't need a VPS and I'm sure as heck not going to support anyone through a Microsoft-owned venture. Payments don't need to be tied to corporations but a lot of people hate crypto (and the exchanges take a substantial cut). At least Liberapay is open, low-fees, not trying to be a loss-leader start-up, and not trying to be a social network.
meetups323 5y ago
Selling GPL software is objectively a terrible business model. If the entire proposition behind buying your software is "it'd be a pain to build this myself so I'll pay someone to compile the binary then give it to me", the only thing I can infer is that you have an unnecessarily painful build process. Supporting GPL software, on the other hand, can be very viable. Another good option is licensing data to be interpreted/rendered/whatever by your GPL software. End of the day, people don't buy software. They buy solutions to business problems. If the business problem can be solved for free by building the FOSS software yourself, there's no reason to pay the creator. On the other hand, if the creator sells "I will solve X business problem for you, this is an example of some of the FOSS software I will use to do so, but in the event this software is unable to properly solve the problem I will take whatever steps are needed to ensure it is solved to your satisfaction", it makes darn good sense to pay that creator to solve that problem.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >Supporting GPL software, on the other hand, can be very viable. Yes but who here wants to work in support?
- badsectoracula 5y ago
  > Supporting GPL software, on the other hand, can be very viable On the other other hand, it means that there is a big incentive from the software's own developers to ensure that the software needs support.
- dalke 5y ago
  Your example proposition assumes the source code is available at no cost from the developer, which isn't necessarily the case. It's true that nearly all GPL'ed (and FOSS) software is available for download at no cost. But there's nothing in a FOSS license which requires a vendor to have a no-cost distribution mechanism. The "Selling Free Software" sales proposition is that you can pay to get the GPL'ed software directly from the developer, or find an existing customer willing to distribute it to you for free, or at a lower cost. The latter step may also require additional diligence as now you have two vendors in your supply chain. That said, it's still a terrible business model.

Blackthorn 5y ago

It's a default paragraph on literally all of his/her blog posts.

toastal 5y ago

Patronage is like the new normal for supporting people creating things online. My only rub is I don't need a VPS and I'm sure as heck not going to support anyone through a Microsoft-owned venture. Payments don't need to be tied to corporations but a lot of people hate crypto (and the exchanges take a substantial cut). At least Liberapay is open, low-fees, not trying to be a loss-leader start-up, and not trying to be a social network.

meetups323 5y ago

Selling GPL software is objectively a terrible business model. If the entire proposition behind buying your software is "it'd be a pain to build this myself so I'll pay someone to compile the binary then give it to me", the only thing I can infer is that you have an unnecessarily painful build process. Supporting GPL software, on the other hand, can be very viable. Another good option is licensing data to be interpreted/rendered/whatever by your GPL software. End of the day, people don't buy software. They buy solutions to business problems. If the business problem can be solved for free by building the FOSS software yourself, there's no reason to pay the creator. On the other hand, if the creator sells "I will solve X business problem for you, this is an example of some of the FOSS software I will use to do so, but in the event this software is unable to properly solve the problem I will take whatever steps are needed to ensure it is solved to your satisfaction", it makes darn good sense to pay that creator to solve that problem.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>Supporting GPL software, on the other hand, can be very viable. Yes but who here wants to work in support?
badsectoracula 5y ago
> Supporting GPL software, on the other hand, can be very viable On the other other hand, it means that there is a big incentive from the software's own developers to ensure that the software needs support.
dalke 5y ago
Your example proposition assumes the source code is available at no cost from the developer, which isn't necessarily the case. It's true that nearly all GPL'ed (and FOSS) software is available for download at no cost. But there's nothing in a FOSS license which requires a vendor to have a no-cost distribution mechanism. The "Selling Free Software" sales proposition is that you can pay to get the GPL'ed software directly from the developer, or find an existing customer willing to distribute it to you for free, or at a lower cost. The latter step may also require additional diligence as now you have two vendors in your supply chain. That said, it's still a terrible business model.