3 ms·
A project can't be monetized without getting wide adoption, and it can't get wide adoption without a permissive license that precludes monetization :(
by senderista 1y ago
A project can't be monetized without getting wide adoption, and it can't get wide adoption without a permissive license that precludes monetization :(
- astrange 1y agoThere's two models that solve this. a) sell support contracts b) have contributors sign copyright agreements, license the project as GPL/AGPL, and then sell commercial licenses for people who can't use that
- dochtman 1y agoNo, they don’t. Selling support contracts is actually hard. GPL/AGPL preclude widespread adoption (these days) — the grandparent explicitly mentioned “permissive” licenses.
- astrange 1y agoAll businesses are hard, but I don't think selling support is especially hard for one. The above two are how x264 development was funded, but it's also how Klara works for BSD and Igalia for web browsers.
- DanielHB 1y agoc) Open core model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model which seems to be by far the most common
- Aurornis 1y agoIt’s the difference between a project and a business. They made an open project and let the community contribute to it and adopt it. They wished it was a business, not a project. A business has support, sales, and higher expectations than the serve-yourself open source projects
- singpolyma3 1y agoIf this were true no nonfree software would ever make money