4 ms·

I can't see where the problem lies. Open Source is free as in freedom, but you can charge for it. E.g Long time ago I paid for Suse Linux distributions. I see

I can't see where the problem lies. Open Source is free as in freedom, but you can charge for it. E.g Long time ago I paid for Suse Linux distributions. I see everyday University's and companies laboratories and offices paying tens of thousands of dollars for proprietary software a year. It is not unreasonable to pay hundreds or thousands for OSS if with that you support development on the free.

mfer 4y ago
To add to this... I remember buying physical media to get my first distros of Linux. The source was open but the builds/dists were what I was paying for. Open source doesn't mean free distributions/builds or free support. If you look at the open source definition[1] it has to do with the source and what you can do with it. The key theme here is the source itself. I've spent a significant amount of my time around open source and having a healthy functional ecosystem of people around it is important. For that to happen you have to solve for the financial parts. Note, I'm not endorsing or rejecting this document foundation move. I've not thought about it enough to do so. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- wjnc 4y ago
  Ha yes this is a nice memory. Getting Debian 3 cd’s and then failing to do my first install because obviously with only one PC you can’t look up a guide online. (My dad always bought the big OS manuals, like 30 cm of paper per MS DOS-version, but this was my first time on my own.) Struggle, struggle to get to text only. Go onto IRC for help. All channels block you because “don’t use root for online”. Well another few days and user created and even X works. Hmm, no gaming on Linux. Miss that. Back to XP. Decade later. Proton is a gift. Installation is easy. Did pick up the Linux basics old school. Never looked back. Decades fly by.
  - mattl 4y ago
    Was it IRC channels blocking you or the servers themselves?
    - wjnc 4y ago
      The channels. They kicked you after a few minutes if you were root. And that made it really hard and probably quite funny to ask for help / pointers. Hey, there’s that stubborn kid again. It’s even (still) in their guidelines [1]! [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianIRCChannelGuidelines https://wiki.debian.org/DebianIRCChannelGuidelines
_8j50 4y ago
So long as you can refuse to pay and just get the source, build it yourself and use it for free.
- ColonelPhantom 4y ago
  That's not actually required for free software (as in freedom), but once you buy you need to get the source as well, and should be able to do with it whatever you want. E.g. the GPL mandates not "you will make the source freely available", it mandates "you will make the source available to everyone who receives the software". Furthermore, the Document Foundation will still be offering free downloads of LO for macOS, they just add another way of getting it that does cost money.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    More than that, it allows any recipient to redistribute. You can buy one copy for $10 and immediately give it to everyone else.
    - ColonelPhantom 4y ago
      That's what I mean by "should be able to do with it whatever you want" :)
  - Asooka 4y ago
    This is going off-topic, but I'm curious. Does this mean I can take a GPL project, modify it, then sell the binaries+source for $$$ and refuse to release my modifications for free?
    - ForHackernews 4y ago
      Yes, of course. You are required to make the patches of your modifications available under the GPL, but you are not required to distribute your modified binaries for free.
      - 4y ago
rascul 4y ago
> Long time ago I paid for Suse Linux distributions. The box set even came with a book.
- mikecoles 4y ago
  Pins and a plushy mascot as well.
  - wink 4y ago
    Not by default, or at least not the 5.x/6.x versions I bought here in Germany.
  - rascul 4y ago
    I never got the plushy mascot :(
Asooka 4y ago
I see one problem with this - for outside contributors. If I contribute a patch to a project that is free of charge, then my contribution is on the same altruistic grounds as other devs' contributions - for both of us the profit from our contributions is the continued existence and improvement of the software. However, if an organisation is charging money in some way, then I do not profit equally - I get better software, but the organisation gets both better software and money, which they pay to their staff developers. That is, my contribution has calculable monetary value and someone else gets paid for it. Obviously for small contributions, e.g. writing or updating a bug report, or fixing some trivial one-line bug, the amount is insignificant and not worth thinking about. I'm thinking more about larger contributions - extra features, tricky bugs, etc - stuff that takes weeks or months to develop. You can expect outside contributors to want some guarantee of getting paid for large contributions if you're a project that is actively monetised in some way, even if the software is also available completely for free.
- benj111 4y ago
  True. But the approach we're talking about here is more akin to fundraising. The sum is fairly nominal, and there are alternative free ways of getting the software.

mfer 4y ago

To add to this... I remember buying physical media to get my first distros of Linux. The source was open but the builds/dists were what I was paying for. Open source doesn't mean free distributions/builds or free support. If you look at the open source definition[1] it has to do with the source and what you can do with it. The key theme here is the source itself. I've spent a significant amount of my time around open source and having a healthy functional ecosystem of people around it is important. For that to happen you have to solve for the financial parts. Note, I'm not endorsing or rejecting this document foundation move. I've not thought about it enough to do so. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

wjnc 4y ago
Ha yes this is a nice memory. Getting Debian 3 cd’s and then failing to do my first install because obviously with only one PC you can’t look up a guide online. (My dad always bought the big OS manuals, like 30 cm of paper per MS DOS-version, but this was my first time on my own.) Struggle, struggle to get to text only. Go onto IRC for help. All channels block you because “don’t use root for online”. Well another few days and user created and even X works. Hmm, no gaming on Linux. Miss that. Back to XP. Decade later. Proton is a gift. Installation is easy. Did pick up the Linux basics old school. Never looked back. Decades fly by.
- mattl 4y ago
  Was it IRC channels blocking you or the servers themselves?
  - wjnc 4y ago
    The channels. They kicked you after a few minutes if you were root. And that made it really hard and probably quite funny to ask for help / pointers. Hey, there’s that stubborn kid again. It’s even (still) in their guidelines [1]! [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianIRCChannelGuidelines https://wiki.debian.org/DebianIRCChannelGuidelines

_8j50 4y ago

So long as you can refuse to pay and just get the source, build it yourself and use it for free.

ColonelPhantom 4y ago
That's not actually required for free software (as in freedom), but once you buy you need to get the source as well, and should be able to do with it whatever you want. E.g. the GPL mandates not "you will make the source freely available", it mandates "you will make the source available to everyone who receives the software". Furthermore, the Document Foundation will still be offering free downloads of LO for macOS, they just add another way of getting it that does cost money.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  More than that, it allows any recipient to redistribute. You can buy one copy for $10 and immediately give it to everyone else.
  - ColonelPhantom 4y ago
    That's what I mean by "should be able to do with it whatever you want" :)
- Asooka 4y ago
  This is going off-topic, but I'm curious. Does this mean I can take a GPL project, modify it, then sell the binaries+source for $$$ and refuse to release my modifications for free?
  - ForHackernews 4y ago
    Yes, of course. You are required to make the patches of your modifications available under the GPL, but you are not required to distribute your modified binaries for free.
    - 4y ago

rascul 4y ago

> Long time ago I paid for Suse Linux distributions. The box set even came with a book.

mikecoles 4y ago
Pins and a plushy mascot as well.
- wink 4y ago
  Not by default, or at least not the 5.x/6.x versions I bought here in Germany.
- rascul 4y ago
  I never got the plushy mascot :(

Asooka 4y ago

I see one problem with this - for outside contributors. If I contribute a patch to a project that is free of charge, then my contribution is on the same altruistic grounds as other devs' contributions - for both of us the profit from our contributions is the continued existence and improvement of the software. However, if an organisation is charging money in some way, then I do not profit equally - I get better software, but the organisation gets both better software and money, which they pay to their staff developers. That is, my contribution has calculable monetary value and someone else gets paid for it. Obviously for small contributions, e.g. writing or updating a bug report, or fixing some trivial one-line bug, the amount is insignificant and not worth thinking about. I'm thinking more about larger contributions - extra features, tricky bugs, etc - stuff that takes weeks or months to develop. You can expect outside contributors to want some guarantee of getting paid for large contributions if you're a project that is actively monetised in some way, even if the software is also available completely for free.

benj111 4y ago
True. But the approach we're talking about here is more akin to fundraising. The sum is fairly nominal, and there are alternative free ways of getting the software.