6 ms·

how should maintainer make money?

by lordmoma 5mo ago

foo12bar 5mo ago
Hunt, gather.
- SV_BubbleTime 5mo ago
  There was also toolmaker to support the hunter and gatherer… so… back to square one.
abeyer 5mo ago
Personally I'd be fine with a commercial license with source available here... the issue isn't the price, it's the fact that you're asked to MITM every network connection you make under the control of a binary blob. I think it's fair to ask that a developer choosing to build a thing that requires that kind of access should be expected to err on the side of transparency.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
righthand 5mo ago
You mean “how can I donate?” https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch?tab=readme-ov-file#donations https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch?tab=readme-ov-file#...
- konart 5mo ago
  So... what if the maker can't make it on donations only?
  - preisschild 5mo ago
    Then development will stop and users don't have the software anymore. If users consider this software important they should donate so they can keep using it.
    - veber-alex 5mo ago
      How exactly is this different from payed software?
      - dizhn 5mo ago
        There is a ton of software that lives on because it matters to the developer(s). I know "but mah monetization" is huge on this forum but it's not an all encompassing rule and it does not completely reflect the existing reality.
        bornfreddy 5mo ago
        Strong disagree on this stance. You want to use the software? Cool, pay for it. Need access to source? It's on github, go nuts. Want to change it? Sure, feel free, but whoever uses it should pay the original developer. You can even charge extra for your modifications. Don't like the terms? Too bad - feel free to rewrite from scratch. FOSS simply isn't sustainable if you want to make a living out of it. It protects a lot of user freedoms - even those that don't actually matter to users that much - at the expense of the rights of developers. There are a lot of ways that developers could be paid and users would still be protected (have access to source and the right to modify). The only ones benefitting from the current situation are BigTech. /rant
        dizhn 5mo ago
        Who are we to dictate terms to or divine the intentions of someone who releases software with say the MIT license? It might sound surprising but a lot of developers just want to share their work altruistically. There are some you couldn't pay if you wanted to. It's all voluntary. > FOSS simply isn't sustainable if you want to make a living out of it. This is probably true enough. Yet there are a million open source projects that existed, some for decades. There has go to be another way and another motivation. > even those that don't actually matter to users that much - at the expense of the rights of developers I would assume those developers would use a different license or even create their own terms. > The only ones benefitting from the current situation are BigTech. Paying the original developers will not change this. Big tech is big. They take whatever they can, sometimes killing the original project in the process. Perhaps a license like GPL is the solution to that particular problem. I don't mean to come off snarky. I do agree with a lot of the things that you're saying but I see the free software movement as a completely voluntary and human thing. You could not get rid of it if you wanted. Paying for it is an auxiliary thing and concentrates too much on the wrong thing IMO. A lot of free software developers are already gainfully employed, some are millionaires. Yes some are struggling but then they are still voluntarily sharing their work with the whole world. That must mean they have their valid reasons for doing so.
preisschild 5mo ago
open source / free software is not necessarily free as in free beer. You can sell GPL software.
7402 5mo ago
I've happily been a paid user on macOS for years, I would guess the number of paid users there was able to fund the Linux development.
AlexeyBelov 5mo ago
Working a job?

how should maintainer make money?

foo12bar 5mo ago

Hunt, gather.

SV_BubbleTime 5mo ago
There was also toolmaker to support the hunter and gatherer… so… back to square one.

abeyer 5mo ago

Personally I'd be fine with a commercial license with source available here... the issue isn't the price, it's the fact that you're asked to MITM every network connection you make under the control of a binary blob. I think it's fair to ask that a developer choosing to build a thing that requires that kind of access should be expected to err on the side of transparency.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

righthand 5mo ago

You mean “how can I donate?” https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch?tab=readme-ov-file#donations https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch?tab=readme-ov-file#...

konart 5mo ago
So... what if the maker can't make it on donations only?
- preisschild 5mo ago
  Then development will stop and users don't have the software anymore. If users consider this software important they should donate so they can keep using it.
  - veber-alex 5mo ago
    How exactly is this different from payed software?
    - dizhn 5mo ago
      There is a ton of software that lives on because it matters to the developer(s). I know "but mah monetization" is huge on this forum but it's not an all encompassing rule and it does not completely reflect the existing reality.
      - bornfreddy 5mo ago
        Strong disagree on this stance. You want to use the software? Cool, pay for it. Need access to source? It's on github, go nuts. Want to change it? Sure, feel free, but whoever uses it should pay the original developer. You can even charge extra for your modifications. Don't like the terms? Too bad - feel free to rewrite from scratch. FOSS simply isn't sustainable if you want to make a living out of it. It protects a lot of user freedoms - even those that don't actually matter to users that much - at the expense of the rights of developers. There are a lot of ways that developers could be paid and users would still be protected (have access to source and the right to modify). The only ones benefitting from the current situation are BigTech. /rant
        dizhn 5mo ago
        Who are we to dictate terms to or divine the intentions of someone who releases software with say the MIT license? It might sound surprising but a lot of developers just want to share their work altruistically. There are some you couldn't pay if you wanted to. It's all voluntary. > FOSS simply isn't sustainable if you want to make a living out of it. This is probably true enough. Yet there are a million open source projects that existed, some for decades. There has go to be another way and another motivation. > even those that don't actually matter to users that much - at the expense of the rights of developers I would assume those developers would use a different license or even create their own terms. > The only ones benefitting from the current situation are BigTech. Paying the original developers will not change this. Big tech is big. They take whatever they can, sometimes killing the original project in the process. Perhaps a license like GPL is the solution to that particular problem. I don't mean to come off snarky. I do agree with a lot of the things that you're saying but I see the free software movement as a completely voluntary and human thing. You could not get rid of it if you wanted. Paying for it is an auxiliary thing and concentrates too much on the wrong thing IMO. A lot of free software developers are already gainfully employed, some are millionaires. Yes some are struggling but then they are still voluntarily sharing their work with the whole world. That must mean they have their valid reasons for doing so.

preisschild 5mo ago

open source / free software is not necessarily free as in free beer. You can sell GPL software.

7402 5mo ago

I've happily been a paid user on macOS for years, I would guess the number of paid users there was able to fund the Linux development.

AlexeyBelov 5mo ago

Working a job?