4 ms·

Why not sell licenses? Perhaps they could have nominal benefits that are low impact on the maintainer, like early access to various things? Maybe foosel doesn't

by ary 3y ago

Why not sell licenses? Perhaps they could have nominal benefits that are low impact on the maintainer, like early access to various things? Maybe foosel doesn't want to run a business, but given the choice between doing what I love and avoiding some administrative overhead I think I'd always choose the former. I'm reminded of what happened to the creators of Dwarf Fortress and it's hard not to recommend some form of commercialization for projects that need financial support.

mholt 3y ago
I've learned from personal experience that people don't like it when you start selling licenses to open source software.
- snuxoll 3y ago
  Nothing wrong with selling supported binaries. Bug reports are a valuable contribution to any project, but if you want your issue prioritized then paying $$$ is a fair ask. I'd say lock binaries behind a paywall altogether, but that's not going to stop packagers from putting it in distro repositories or AUR (without a non-open source license, at least).
  - _xivi 3y ago
    > but if you want your issue prioritized then paying $$$ is a fair ask The problem usually is that this will cause a conflict of interest with the maintainer role. Leading to demise of the open-source/community side, and the rise of better alternatives while you're busy navigating this transaction and trying to balance the stick. I'm just saying that I haven't seen much successful examples of projects that went down that route.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Let them not like it? Also SaaS is an option.
- godelski 3y ago
  It's really a shame, especially on a website like this. I can understand being frustrated with things, but we need some nuance a lot of times. I'm not sure why we need to have holy wars over what is "open source" and rather recognize that it's a scale. Importantly, if an opensource operation can't be funded being unquestionably open source, then I see no issue making transitions like you suggested or the "free to user, cost to companies" method (how is that worth a holy war?). It's an extra shame given the average salary (current or future) of someone on this website. If you're not struggling, pony up, if you are, then I'm not sure how you don't have compassion. After all, isn't the open source dream we all have about open communities, code, and everything? If we can't perfectly achieve that due to environmental constraints, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That just discourages any other "open source" projects, by whatever definition you use. Mostly open is still better than fully closed, right? [note to holy war people] I'll accept holy wars if you show me receipts that you fund >25% of the open source tools you use. That's a low enough bar, right?
  - kiba 3y ago
    If I make money off open source, I'll start paying more. As it is, I donate 5 bucks a month to OpenSCAD. I also bought printers from Prusa, so that already counted as supporting open source. That's thousand of dollars and increasing. What I haven't done yet is to earn a single dollars doing anything related to 3D printing and design work. Mostly open is still better than fully closed, right? The dream is that commerce and open source aren't in direct opposition to each other. We do that by finding the right business models, not compromising our values.
    - godelski 3y ago
      > If I make money off open source, I'll start paying more. As it is, I donate 5 bucks a month to OpenSCAD. I'll refer you back to my zealot note. The question isn't about if you're making money from the product but if you use the produce and have the means to donate. If you got a big tech job and you're only donating only $60/yr to open source projects then I'm not sure you have a horse to sit on. You probably pay a lot more for things you probably use a lot less. If not, I'm not sure what I said to that compelled you to defend yourself. > The dream is that commerce and open source aren't in direct opposition to each other. Yes, the dream is post-scarcity or being independently wealthy, which in either case one can just work for fun. But transitioning to post-scarcity is an incredibly disruptive process that has the capacity to hurt a lot of people before it benefits so many. But until then, people need money so I'm not sure what conversation we're trying to have here. > We do that by finding the right business models, not compromising our values. See the above where I mentioned someone previously try unquestionably open source and failed, as is the context around octoprint. The __only__ business model for that is relying on donations. You got an alternative that you'd like to enlighten us? One that doesn't "compromise values?" (I don't see the business pay option as compromising but it's not an uncommon discussion here. Hence the specific call out) Let's be straight, it's not compromising values if you're forced into a position: that's coercion.

by ary 3y ago

mholt 3y ago

I've learned from personal experience that people don't like it when you start selling licenses to open source software.

snuxoll 3y ago
Nothing wrong with selling supported binaries. Bug reports are a valuable contribution to any project, but if you want your issue prioritized then paying $$$ is a fair ask. I'd say lock binaries behind a paywall altogether, but that's not going to stop packagers from putting it in distro repositories or AUR (without a non-open source license, at least).
- _xivi 3y ago
  > but if you want your issue prioritized then paying $$$ is a fair ask The problem usually is that this will cause a conflict of interest with the maintainer role. Leading to demise of the open-source/community side, and the rise of better alternatives while you're busy navigating this transaction and trying to balance the stick. I'm just saying that I haven't seen much successful examples of projects that went down that route.
quickthrower2 3y ago
Let them not like it? Also SaaS is an option.
godelski 3y ago
It's really a shame, especially on a website like this. I can understand being frustrated with things, but we need some nuance a lot of times. I'm not sure why we need to have holy wars over what is "open source" and rather recognize that it's a scale. Importantly, if an opensource operation can't be funded being unquestionably open source, then I see no issue making transitions like you suggested or the "free to user, cost to companies" method (how is that worth a holy war?). It's an extra shame given the average salary (current or future) of someone on this website. If you're not struggling, pony up, if you are, then I'm not sure how you don't have compassion. After all, isn't the open source dream we all have about open communities, code, and everything? If we can't perfectly achieve that due to environmental constraints, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That just discourages any other "open source" projects, by whatever definition you use. Mostly open is still better than fully closed, right? [note to holy war people] I'll accept holy wars if you show me receipts that you fund >25% of the open source tools you use. That's a low enough bar, right?
- kiba 3y ago
  If I make money off open source, I'll start paying more. As it is, I donate 5 bucks a month to OpenSCAD. I also bought printers from Prusa, so that already counted as supporting open source. That's thousand of dollars and increasing. What I haven't done yet is to earn a single dollars doing anything related to 3D printing and design work. Mostly open is still better than fully closed, right? The dream is that commerce and open source aren't in direct opposition to each other. We do that by finding the right business models, not compromising our values.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > If I make money off open source, I'll start paying more. As it is, I donate 5 bucks a month to OpenSCAD. I'll refer you back to my zealot note. The question isn't about if you're making money from the product but if you use the produce and have the means to donate. If you got a big tech job and you're only donating only $60/yr to open source projects then I'm not sure you have a horse to sit on. You probably pay a lot more for things you probably use a lot less. If not, I'm not sure what I said to that compelled you to defend yourself. > The dream is that commerce and open source aren't in direct opposition to each other. Yes, the dream is post-scarcity or being independently wealthy, which in either case one can just work for fun. But transitioning to post-scarcity is an incredibly disruptive process that has the capacity to hurt a lot of people before it benefits so many. But until then, people need money so I'm not sure what conversation we're trying to have here. > We do that by finding the right business models, not compromising our values. See the above where I mentioned someone previously try unquestionably open source and failed, as is the context around octoprint. The __only__ business model for that is relying on donations. You got an alternative that you'd like to enlighten us? One that doesn't "compromise values?" (I don't see the business pay option as compromising but it's not an uncommon discussion here. Hence the specific call out) Let's be straight, it's not compromising values if you're forced into a position: that's coercion.