4 ms·
Well, you don't directly monetize open source software. What you do is you become a "VC" and get a bunch of guys to build on top of "open source" with a X-as-a
by oxff 4y ago
Well, you don't directly monetize open source software.
What you do is you become a "VC" and get a bunch of guys to build on top of "open source" with a X-as-a-Service based subscription model, and then you contribute pennies back (and usually: just posting issues to the open source stuff you use to get slaves to slave away for free).
- paydevs 4y agoI feel you that the current situation is not good, but nobody is forcing developers to share their projects as open-source or to use a license that is company-friendly. If the maintainer(s) do not want companies to profit from the OSS without giving back they could easily use a copyleft License (e.g., GPL) or switch to a closed-source approach. And btw. it's not super easy for companies to contribute on a voluntary basis - their investors or stakeholders would not allow/like it. What they can do is declaring it as "donations" and paying it from the marketing budget.
- jen20 4y agoNothing stops companies profiting from GPL software. Red Hat built an entire company doing so.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoCiting one outlier does not disprove a rule of thumb.
- dgb23 4y agoWhich means they contribute.
- sieabahlpark 4y agoHow about we as a society understand that not everything written is worth paying for? People need to treat open source as contributing openly to society with no expectation of return. Conversely there is no guarantee the maintainer has to listen or do anything anyone says. If people want to support you can charge to support.