new | show | ask | jobs Github

konart 2 days ago

So... what if the maker can't make it on donations only?

▲

preisschild 2 days ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

konart 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>and users don't have the software anymore.

Not exactly. Users still have the software. They don't have updates.

See the issue here? Even if someone just fixes some bugs and security fixes - this alone can be time consuming. At the same time many users can just accept the version without those pathes and don't donate.

So you have a choice - continue to maintain the software for less money or to drop it, leaving donating users with no support.

▲

veber-alex 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How exactly is this different from payed software?

▲

dizhn 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

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 2 days ago | parent [-]

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 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

righthand 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The developer isn’t accepting a job offer to develop it, they’re accepting donations. That’s literally how the software devs for Opensnitch choose to receive payment.