3 ms·

> If neither of those are a good fit, premium support, merchandise and ultimately donations might be an option. And what if neither of those are a good fit? Wi

> If neither of those are a good fit, premium support, merchandise and ultimately donations might be an option. And what if neither of those are a good fit? Will you concede that there is a real world out there where open source software competes with proprietary and closed source systems? And that you cannot compete with corporations eating passion alone? That you have to have a monetization system in place that can generate at least a non-negligible fraction of what the closed source competitor can?

imiric 4y ago
As a sibling comment pointed out, deciding to write OSS is part of a broader philosophy on software freedoms, which also relates to monetization and business models. It means putting the freedom of your users above growing a corporation that can compete in financial terms with companies that don't ascribe to that philosophy. It also means having to be creative with how you monetize your product/service, and generally treating your users better than just as participants in a business transaction. If you don't agree with that philosophy then writing OSS is not for you, and that's OK. Most users unfortunately won't mind using software that doesn't give them these freedoms, and the internet at large is evidence of that. Some of us will choose not to use proprietary software, but if your main goal is to grow a business, you likely won't notice a small portion of these potential missing sales.
- manholio 4y ago
  I don't dispute it's a philosophy, but it's an extremist version. It's like having the choice between asceticism, living alone in the desert eating critters, versus extreme hedonism, gluttony and materialism. But most people reject both. What I'm pointing out is that we could imagine a happy compromise where 99% of the goals of free software are achieved, that would not only allow developers to make a comfortable living, but also benefit the vast majority of people who use software without understanding technical complexities. If the software: - has source available, and anyone can study it and audit it; - allows anyone to create, for their own use, derived or custom versions; - allows anyone to make a business selling derived versions within the license terms (for example, in the time-bomb period the users of your patch must be licensees of the original owner); - guarantees that the vendor cannot lock you in, and the software will become completely free after a certain date; - generates resources for software development that would otherwise not be available, so that functionality could only exist in proprietary, closed source form, ... then, I belive, the loss, for a limited span of time, of the ability to use it gratis is a very good overall compromise. We all understand and accept the idea that work must be paid and that a price tag designates something valuable, that is worth making and paying for. Don't castigate money ideologically, use them to achieve the philosophic goals. Somewhere, somebody pulled a dirty trick on OSS developers and moved the goalposts to "and you must now renounce all material possessions and live on pure ether".

imiric 4y ago

As a sibling comment pointed out, deciding to write OSS is part of a broader philosophy on software freedoms, which also relates to monetization and business models. It means putting the freedom of your users above growing a corporation that can compete in financial terms with companies that don't ascribe to that philosophy. It also means having to be creative with how you monetize your product/service, and generally treating your users better than just as participants in a business transaction. If you don't agree with that philosophy then writing OSS is not for you, and that's OK. Most users unfortunately won't mind using software that doesn't give them these freedoms, and the internet at large is evidence of that. Some of us will choose not to use proprietary software, but if your main goal is to grow a business, you likely won't notice a small portion of these potential missing sales.

manholio 4y ago
I don't dispute it's a philosophy, but it's an extremist version. It's like having the choice between asceticism, living alone in the desert eating critters, versus extreme hedonism, gluttony and materialism. But most people reject both. What I'm pointing out is that we could imagine a happy compromise where 99% of the goals of free software are achieved, that would not only allow developers to make a comfortable living, but also benefit the vast majority of people who use software without understanding technical complexities. If the software: - has source available, and anyone can study it and audit it; - allows anyone to create, for their own use, derived or custom versions; - allows anyone to make a business selling derived versions within the license terms (for example, in the time-bomb period the users of your patch must be licensees of the original owner); - guarantees that the vendor cannot lock you in, and the software will become completely free after a certain date; - generates resources for software development that would otherwise not be available, so that functionality could only exist in proprietary, closed source form, ... then, I belive, the loss, for a limited span of time, of the ability to use it gratis is a very good overall compromise. We all understand and accept the idea that work must be paid and that a price tag designates something valuable, that is worth making and paying for. Don't castigate money ideologically, use them to achieve the philosophic goals. Somewhere, somebody pulled a dirty trick on OSS developers and moved the goalposts to "and you must now renounce all material possessions and live on pure ether".