3 ms·

> I'd rather see small projects come and go as time permits, What this really amounts to is that you/large companies like the work you get for free. > OSS is

> I'd rather see small projects come and go as time permits, What this really amounts to is that you/large companies like the work you get for free. > OSS is one of the few remaining examples of actual public cooperation without a profit motive. Injecting capitalism into it is just going to ruin it. This is so far off the mark. The profit motive made OSS what it is today. The only issue right now is many OSS devs aren't being paid/appreciated for their efforts. > Having the funding model ("is it sustainable") be a separate concern from the codebase ("what's the best way I can make this library/framework") is a GOOD thing to keep separate, almost like the editorial vs advertisement/sales divide in journalism. Agreed, but remember what you're paying for is the service of packaging. The idea is the package maintainer can keep the garbage out. That's what you're paying them for. OSS is in many ways a market distortion. And that's good for some and horrible for others (e.g. grade school teachers used to get paid much, much less in real terms than they do today). A small fee for commercial, production use of Ubuntu's packaging service, a portion of which funds devs? I'm not certain that's a bad idea.

wowokay 4y ago
Why is it open source software if the goal is make money off of it? The problem is devs shouldn’t feel like their hobby became a job, they should stop maintaining the code if it becomes to much of a job, or commercialize it. Have a fork that is private and monitized with extra features. The street performer example was spot on, the existence of a package and its promotion doesn’t entitle it to compensation. What if the performers suck and detract from the passerbys park experience? Are they entitled to compensation for indirectly listing to music they didn’t want to hear in the first place?
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  > Why is it open source software if the goal is make money off of it? The problem is devs shouldn’t feel like their hobby became a job, they should stop maintaining the code if it becomes to much of a job, or commercialize it. Have a fork that is private and monitized with extra features. Why isn't it? Did Linux stop being OSS when Linus first got paid for developing it? Plenty of devs would love to do the same and make a few dollars from their hobby project! > What if the performers suck and detract from the passerbys park experience? Are they entitled to compensation for indirectly listing to music they didn’t want to hear in the first place? I made top level post re: these questions[0], but I'd make a few addendums to the article: 1. a packaging service for FOSS should always be free for non-commercial use, 2. for commercial use, the pricing should not be on a per package basis but priced for the service of packaging the packages and the pricing should be modest, 3. substantial portion of which (>50%) should then go to the FOSS devs based on their install base, 4. this should except the standard installation, which should receive a highly reduced share. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31961092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31961092
solardev 4y ago
Not really. I'm usually the guy at work advocating that we pay for some service rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. And if I solve some small problem, I push for the company to open source it without a financial and branding push behind it so that other devs can benefit. Not everything should be a capitalist competition. Patreon and buy a coffee are good models too. And devs are hardly starving to begin with. I just think some stuff shouldn't be monetized. I on occasion contribute back to OSS too, and it's nice to be able to do that just for fun, as a hobby. Some things turn out better when people are able to detach them from their livelihoods, whether that's a short story or a musical instrument or a small side project. The profit motive ruins a lot. It's not like funding a project magically increases its quality, either. Then it distorts PRs and roadmaps by making funders de facto product owners. I've run into issues trying to contribute back upstream because it didn't meet the needs of their corporate sponsors. And there will forever be a conflict of interest from that point forward between profit and other concerns. Besides, the big OSS projects seem to survive fine as is. The small ones aren't making anyone rich and IMO they shouldn't. I wouldn't want my pet weekend project to become another source of financial stress, or have to figure out which lib is best based on pricing models. It sucks the joy out of sharing reusable software.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  > The profit motive ruins a lot. "I think it's fine for me to make money off certain things, but not for others" and "You're not doing it the right way" is just not a defensible position. It's like those teachers from an earlier time. Yes, it was really nice for some. We had small classes and a very high quality of instruction, but at the expense of some people were not getting paid what they were worth. NCAA is another good example. You may like the idea of the student athlete or playing for the spirit of the game, but is that fair to a kid who wants to use his name, image, and likeness rights to make money for himself? Does it make more sense for the university or the NCAA to own these rights? > I've run into issues trying to contribute back upstream because it didn't meet the needs of their corporate sponsors. What you're saying is -- the problem will exist no matter what we do. I think it's better that people get paid, if we can pay them. > And devs are hardly starving to begin with. And software companies are definitely not starving either. The most advantaged persons in this distorted economy are the users. Having Amazon pay a few dollars is not going to hurt anyone. > The small ones aren't making anyone rich and IMO they shouldn't. I agree the article's particular model is not the one I would have chosen. I think there are better ways to do this. See my other comments for how I might do it.

wowokay 4y ago

Why is it open source software if the goal is make money off of it? The problem is devs shouldn’t feel like their hobby became a job, they should stop maintaining the code if it becomes to much of a job, or commercialize it. Have a fork that is private and monitized with extra features. The street performer example was spot on, the existence of a package and its promotion doesn’t entitle it to compensation. What if the performers suck and detract from the passerbys park experience? Are they entitled to compensation for indirectly listing to music they didn’t want to hear in the first place?

mustache_kimono 4y ago
> Why is it open source software if the goal is make money off of it? The problem is devs shouldn’t feel like their hobby became a job, they should stop maintaining the code if it becomes to much of a job, or commercialize it. Have a fork that is private and monitized with extra features. Why isn't it? Did Linux stop being OSS when Linus first got paid for developing it? Plenty of devs would love to do the same and make a few dollars from their hobby project! > What if the performers suck and detract from the passerbys park experience? Are they entitled to compensation for indirectly listing to music they didn’t want to hear in the first place? I made top level post re: these questions[0], but I'd make a few addendums to the article: 1. a packaging service for FOSS should always be free for non-commercial use, 2. for commercial use, the pricing should not be on a per package basis but priced for the service of packaging the packages and the pricing should be modest, 3. substantial portion of which (>50%) should then go to the FOSS devs based on their install base, 4. this should except the standard installation, which should receive a highly reduced share. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31961092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31961092

solardev 4y ago

Not really. I'm usually the guy at work advocating that we pay for some service rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. And if I solve some small problem, I push for the company to open source it without a financial and branding push behind it so that other devs can benefit. Not everything should be a capitalist competition. Patreon and buy a coffee are good models too. And devs are hardly starving to begin with. I just think some stuff shouldn't be monetized. I on occasion contribute back to OSS too, and it's nice to be able to do that just for fun, as a hobby. Some things turn out better when people are able to detach them from their livelihoods, whether that's a short story or a musical instrument or a small side project. The profit motive ruins a lot. It's not like funding a project magically increases its quality, either. Then it distorts PRs and roadmaps by making funders de facto product owners. I've run into issues trying to contribute back upstream because it didn't meet the needs of their corporate sponsors. And there will forever be a conflict of interest from that point forward between profit and other concerns. Besides, the big OSS projects seem to survive fine as is. The small ones aren't making anyone rich and IMO they shouldn't. I wouldn't want my pet weekend project to become another source of financial stress, or have to figure out which lib is best based on pricing models. It sucks the joy out of sharing reusable software.

mustache_kimono 4y ago
> The profit motive ruins a lot. "I think it's fine for me to make money off certain things, but not for others" and "You're not doing it the right way" is just not a defensible position. It's like those teachers from an earlier time. Yes, it was really nice for some. We had small classes and a very high quality of instruction, but at the expense of some people were not getting paid what they were worth. NCAA is another good example. You may like the idea of the student athlete or playing for the spirit of the game, but is that fair to a kid who wants to use his name, image, and likeness rights to make money for himself? Does it make more sense for the university or the NCAA to own these rights? > I've run into issues trying to contribute back upstream because it didn't meet the needs of their corporate sponsors. What you're saying is -- the problem will exist no matter what we do. I think it's better that people get paid, if we can pay them. > And devs are hardly starving to begin with. And software companies are definitely not starving either. The most advantaged persons in this distorted economy are the users. Having Amazon pay a few dollars is not going to hurt anyone. > The small ones aren't making anyone rich and IMO they shouldn't. I agree the article's particular model is not the one I would have chosen. I think there are better ways to do this. See my other comments for how I might do it.