undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthat_guy_iain4y ago0 comments

>Does "source available" allow people to fork a project and redistribute it? What happens if the original author abandons the project for any reason?

A project generating enough revenue would just be outsourced to someone else, sold, etc. Just like normal commerical software.

> I am less inclined to support someone making shareware than someone who is making free software

The point is you wouldn't need to support them, they would be generating revenue from for-profit companies using the software. Companies that generate money using the code would have to pay for the code.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

rglullis4y ago· 2 in thread

> Just like normal commerical software.

Yeah, but that means that it is "just like normal commercial software", which is not the point of Free/Libre/Open Source Software.

You are basically saying "I wish that people writing FOSS stopped doing that."

> they would be generating revenue from for-profit companies using the software.

That makes the very naive assumption that a FOSS project that has grown to be successful would have reached the same status if it were "source available".

that_guy_iainOP4y ago

> You are basically saying "I wish that people writing FOSS stopped doing that."

Yes. I wish people would stop doing FOSS and started doing source avaialble instead of open source and charged companies money. I wish people who built super valuable software got properly rewarded for their efforts.

I know it's odd that someone doesn't think FOSS is great. But some of us honestly think it's the worst thing in tech. It's the cause of so many hassles for companies and open source maintainers alike. It seems like every month some open source maintainer has to tell people that they're not getting paid for this and they don't have time to work on it properly because they have a day job and a life. So they have very limited time to work on this project. Then we have maintainers who tell people they don't really want pull requests because pull requests are work since they need to maintain them. All of this is solved when people are paid for thier work and it's not a hobby project.

> That makes the very naive assumption that a FOSS project that has grown to be successful would have reached the same status if it were "source available".

The thing is, it wouldn't even need to reach the same status to generate a livable income. Seriously, if you have a project that you sell to revenue generating companies for 1k a year each. And you only get 75 companies using it heavily instead of 30,000 companies. You're good to live off that and work on that project full time.

rglullis4y ago

> You're good to live off that and work on that project full time.

What if they don't want to work on it full time? What if they don't feel like they are tied to their work or obligated to serve "customers"?

Software is not just about creating tools for a trade. Software is also self-expression and leverage for creating other things of worth.

Your issue is with FOSS developers who are amateurs (in the good sense of the word) and thus "fail" at supporting themselves and their "customers" with their work.

This is a not only an incredibly myopic view - I really don't even want to imagine what would be the state of the industry if FOSS projects like GNU, Linux, Apache and many others who are successfully funded didn't exist - it is also one that serves only the big corporate world that you think "should be paying". It reeks of a Protestant worldview that acts as something is only worth doing if you can make money off it.

Anyway, your problem is with "amateurism" in the industry, not with FOSS. For every "hassle" you find in FOSS projects, there are plenty of others who are successfully managed, with developers who know to answer "This is Free Software, but it does not mean you are entitled to free work or my time. If you want me to solve a problem you are having, you have to pay for it".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse