4 ms·

There is a large intersection of Linux users and people who cherish their freedoms. For many people, using non-open source note taking software is a non starter

There is a large intersection of Linux users and people who cherish their freedoms. For many people, using non-open source note taking software is a non starter because of the vendor lock-in and privacy concerns. Thus, you'll probably lose out more by not open sourcing the program than by open sourcing it and risk having some people not pay. I wager a lot more people is willing to pay than use proprietary software. Also note that open sourcing doesn't require you to distribute the code to everyone, you can give source code only to paying users if you are charging them money, though they will have the right to modify and redistribute. If they don't care about open source, they might as well just use Notion or Evernote. If someone is looking for an open source state of the art note taking program, I recommend Logseq.

lupusreal 3y ago
There are some programs that sell binaries but also give away the code. The premier pixel art editor Aseprite is free (source available, not open source) if you're willing to build it from source yourself, but most users buy the prebuilt binaries. I think this way you satisfy both the privacy conscious / cheapskates, and also the developer's economic needs. RMS doesn't approve I'm sure, but you can't please them all.
- em-bee 3y ago
  if the license is GPL you can give away the source and sell binaries. you can even restrict giving the source to those that buy your binaries. red hat is doing that. the only limitation is that you can't prevent anyone who has the source from building it themselves and giving away those binaries. but most people who do pay for the binaries won't do that. so whether this strategy works depends on who is your target audience. if you are targeting developers you probably won't sell much. but other audiences may be fine. i don't know.
- sph 3y ago
  RMS totally approves, and selling binaries (as long as they are accompanied by source code) is explicitly approved by the FSF. Open-source has never been about hating money or working for the glory.
  - seba_dos1 3y ago
    Approves selling software, but doesn't approve making it non-free - and Aseprite is non-free (it used to be free in the past).
rubymamis 3y ago
I'm a big believer in open source software. I've had wonderful contributors and I'm using qutie a few open source libraries/components in my own apps. That's why I open sourced my own app. I've tried many different options so I could make a living with it (ads, donations, premium features). There are definitely more ways to explore. But for now, I need to ensure that my financial situation is stable before anything else. Then, maybe in the future I'll be able to afford tinkering with a sustainable way of open sourcing. I've also started to notice many VCs starting to invest in open source software (just today saw Godot featured on HN). So that can also be a potential route.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- solarkraft 3y ago
  It's great that you generally believe in FOSS. You deserve to profit from your work. I wouldn't be opposed to paying (the app looks interesting). But I'd definitely want the security that, should you abandon the project, someone will be able to perform some maintenance. This is why I'm fairly okay with releasing the code late or licensed as "FOSS if unmaintained". Ardour's model of charging for binaries doesn't seem too bad either.
  - rubymamis 3y ago
    Well, your data will always be just plaintext. So you'll be safe whatever happens. > This is why I'm fairly okay with releasing the code late or licensed as "FOSS if unmaintained" That seems reasonable.

lupusreal 3y ago

There are some programs that sell binaries but also give away the code. The premier pixel art editor Aseprite is free (source available, not open source) if you're willing to build it from source yourself, but most users buy the prebuilt binaries. I think this way you satisfy both the privacy conscious / cheapskates, and also the developer's economic needs. RMS doesn't approve I'm sure, but you can't please them all.

em-bee 3y ago
if the license is GPL you can give away the source and sell binaries. you can even restrict giving the source to those that buy your binaries. red hat is doing that. the only limitation is that you can't prevent anyone who has the source from building it themselves and giving away those binaries. but most people who do pay for the binaries won't do that. so whether this strategy works depends on who is your target audience. if you are targeting developers you probably won't sell much. but other audiences may be fine. i don't know.
sph 3y ago
RMS totally approves, and selling binaries (as long as they are accompanied by source code) is explicitly approved by the FSF. Open-source has never been about hating money or working for the glory.
- seba_dos1 3y ago
  Approves selling software, but doesn't approve making it non-free - and Aseprite is non-free (it used to be free in the past).

rubymamis 3y ago

I'm a big believer in open source software. I've had wonderful contributors and I'm using qutie a few open source libraries/components in my own apps. That's why I open sourced my own app. I've tried many different options so I could make a living with it (ads, donations, premium features). There are definitely more ways to explore. But for now, I need to ensure that my financial situation is stable before anything else. Then, maybe in the future I'll be able to afford tinkering with a sustainable way of open sourcing. I've also started to notice many VCs starting to invest in open source software (just today saw Godot featured on HN). So that can also be a potential route.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
solarkraft 3y ago
It's great that you generally believe in FOSS. You deserve to profit from your work. I wouldn't be opposed to paying (the app looks interesting). But I'd definitely want the security that, should you abandon the project, someone will be able to perform some maintenance. This is why I'm fairly okay with releasing the code late or licensed as "FOSS if unmaintained". Ardour's model of charging for binaries doesn't seem too bad either.
- rubymamis 3y ago
  Well, your data will always be just plaintext. So you'll be safe whatever happens. > This is why I'm fairly okay with releasing the code late or licensed as "FOSS if unmaintained" That seems reasonable.