3 ms·
> That tension seems to inevitably lead to obvious features missing or functionality/knowledge that's needed to operate at any scale coistered away as closed so
by 38 3y ago
> That tension seems to inevitably lead to obvious features missing or functionality/knowledge that's needed to operate at any scale coistered away as closed source so the sponsoring entity can make some money.
I dont think this is a problem at all.
I maintain a small module, and have had many feature requests and support requests over the years. Until I am making enough money to pay my rent, I dont feel one bit guilty about charging for these things. even down to me clicking the Merge Pull Request button. anything that takes even one second of my time, I am charging for. I put months and years of works into the code. and I put the code out in the world for free. If you want an additional feature, or any of my time, pay up.
- tadfisher 3y agoWith all due respect, your model as described is different: the way I read it is that you're charging for work, not charging for a product incorporating your work. The same tension doesn't exist, because you don't have an incentive to paywall a feature; if someone pays you, everyone benefits. Forgive me if I'm off-base with my interpretation of your comment.
- 38 3y ago> if someone pays you, everyone benefits. this is not guaranteed to be the case. if its a feature I dont care about, then likely I will just implement it privately and provide the modified code privately. It would only be if someone was going to be an ongoing donor that I would defer to their concerns regarding public release of any feature requests.