3 ms·

"replacement for preexisting projects with similar goals, such as Tree-Sitter, Rowan, or Salsa." To be a true replacement, there is at least one crucial featur

"replacement for preexisting projects with similar goals, such as Tree-Sitter, Rowan, or Salsa." To be a true replacement, there is at least one crucial feature missing: A LICENSE file that starts with "The MIT License (MIT)". Nothing against "source available" but thinking to have a chance to stand in for more permissively licensed projects is very much unrealistic.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vlovich123 2y ago
It’s amusing to me that we as a community both complain that OSS maintainers aren’t paid and then expect someone who’s making the source available to pick OSS. Let people try alternate funding models and honestly as a hacker community we should be a bit more supportive of the work required to bootstrap something.
- vendiddy 2y ago
  Yeah I would like to see more ideas like this. I really hope there's a model out there for OSS at least where folks can get paid. I always wondered what if engineers had a $100/month budget to donate to OSS founders. It wouldn't cost an employer much and would be a good way to give back.
  - hzakr 2y ago
    Yeah I would like to see more ideas like this. I really hope there's a model out there for OSS at least where folks can get paid. I always wondered what if engineers had a $100/month budget to donate to OSS founders. It wouldn't cost an employer much and would be a good way to give back.
eqvinox 2y ago
> there is at least one crucial feature missing: A LICENSE file that starts with "The MIT License (MIT)". How much, monetarily, would you be willing to contribute to implement that feature?
- weinzierl 2y ago
  Nothing, and that is exactly my point. I have nothing against monetization at all. What I am saying is, that if the elevator pitch for the project you are trying to monetize is "this is a replacement for $MIT-LICENSED-PROJECT" you will have a hard time. The question the elevator pitch should answer first is how much this brings to the table to make me consider paying instead of just using the permissively licensed project for free.
  - jenadine 2y ago
    But it is a replacement. One project don't need to be a pareto obtimum to claim to be replacement, it's ok even if there are some drawbacks. Having to pay is clearly one drawback for some, but if you save this money by not having to develop some features or getting some support, then it may be worth it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

vlovich123 2y ago

It’s amusing to me that we as a community both complain that OSS maintainers aren’t paid and then expect someone who’s making the source available to pick OSS. Let people try alternate funding models and honestly as a hacker community we should be a bit more supportive of the work required to bootstrap something.

vendiddy 2y ago
Yeah I would like to see more ideas like this. I really hope there's a model out there for OSS at least where folks can get paid. I always wondered what if engineers had a $100/month budget to donate to OSS founders. It wouldn't cost an employer much and would be a good way to give back.
- hzakr 2y ago
  Yeah I would like to see more ideas like this. I really hope there's a model out there for OSS at least where folks can get paid. I always wondered what if engineers had a $100/month budget to donate to OSS founders. It wouldn't cost an employer much and would be a good way to give back.

eqvinox 2y ago

> there is at least one crucial feature missing: A LICENSE file that starts with "The MIT License (MIT)". How much, monetarily, would you be willing to contribute to implement that feature?

weinzierl 2y ago
Nothing, and that is exactly my point. I have nothing against monetization at all. What I am saying is, that if the elevator pitch for the project you are trying to monetize is "this is a replacement for $MIT-LICENSED-PROJECT" you will have a hard time. The question the elevator pitch should answer first is how much this brings to the table to make me consider paying instead of just using the permissively licensed project for free.
- jenadine 2y ago
  But it is a replacement. One project don't need to be a pareto obtimum to claim to be replacement, it's ok even if there are some drawbacks. Having to pay is clearly one drawback for some, but if you save this money by not having to develop some features or getting some support, then it may be worth it.