The parasite class didn't get rich by paying people what they're worth, and I doubt they're going to start now
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
150 points (98.7% liked)
Opensource
1439 readers
120 users here now
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
On the one hand I like the sentiment of paying for open source software. But on the other hand the free part of free software is kind of very on the nose.
The free part means freedom. Not lack of payment.
And those companies use the freedom.
Maybe the software license should have been one that only allows non commercial use or the open sourcing of all derivative code.
This is hard though. You present commercial license, and you'll cut out a good 80-90% of the potential users, which means the OSS project is way more likely to die.
I think CTOs should be okay with allowing their employees to contribute to projects they use. In my first hand experience, they're more likely to say "no we shouldn't". It's unfair really.
This is the same argument as "capital flight". It's a bad one as most opensource isn't used commercially. There are thousands of projects maybe millions of projects out there not found anywhere in commercial projects. Most aren't written to end up being used commercially either, but if they ever are, they should get paid.
Arguing against adding a line to get paid in case it's used commercially, is as bad an argument as taxing the rich "because one day I might be rich".
I guess it's time to push for more AGPL
makes thing for free
Doesn't get paid for it
Why not make a license that makes it free if you contribute to development and paid for if you don't?
Because for those using it non commercially it would be prohibitively expensive.