4 ms·

Why not make it free and open source?

• troupo 3y ago
  Because being free and open source will not fund running and development costs?
  • netr0ute 3y ago
    If it's FOSS, then development costs are 0.
    • Retr0id 3y ago
      That's not what FOSS means.
    • nemothekid 3y ago
      This reply has broken my brain. Are there seriously people who think like this?
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    • troupo 3y ago
      People spend 0 development hours on FOSS? Because that's the only way dev costs are zero.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• space_fountain 3y ago
  Well because people need money to eat and because lots of effort would go it it
  • lopkeny12ko 3y ago
    "People need money to eat" is not mutually exclusive with "writing free and open source software." "lots of effort would go it it" is true regardless of software licensing.
    • space_fountain 3y ago
      But the effort would not be compensated by this capitalistic world we live in
• mtlynch 3y ago
  It requires work to create and maintain it, so it's reasonable for the developer to be compensated for that work. It would be great if all software were free and open-source, but it makes it hard to incentivize people to create that software if they're not being compensated. Photopea has a paid version, so people who don't want ads can just use that version.