The Open Source Definition
opensource.org
Introduction Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution The licens…

There has been a lot of talk about companies and individuals adopting licenses that aren’t OSI opensource to protect themselves from mega-corp leechers. Developers have also been condemned who put donation notices in the command-line or during package installation. Projects with opensource cores and paid extensions have also been targets of vitriol.

So, let’s say we wanted to make it possible for the majority of developers to work on software that strictly follows the definition of opensource, which models would be acceptable to make enough money to work on those projects full-time?

  •  Snot Flickerman   ( @SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
    17•2 months ago

    My partner is on SSDI for disability. If she works, she will lose her SSDI income, but she’s allowed to generate income that isn’t work/labor.

    She is exploring FOSS as a career path because she could accept donations and that wouldn’t impact her SSDI. She understands donations would be minimal, but she’s hoping it’s a way for her to break into the FOSS scene.

  •  smpl   ( @smpl@discuss.tchncs.de ) English
    9•2 months ago

    WARNING. Everything other than the last paragraph is kind of rude and opinionated, so skip to the bottom if you only want practical advice and not a philosophical rant.

    First of all Free Software don’t need paid developers. We scruffy hackers create software because it’s fun. I have a strong suspicion that the commercialization of Free Software via the businessfriendly clothing “Open Source” is actually creating a lot of shitty software or at least a lot of good software that’ll be obsoleted to keep business going. Capitalization of Free Software doesn’t have an incentive to create good finished software, quite the opposite. The best open source software from commercial entities is in my opinion those that were open sourced when a product was no longer profitable as a proprietary business. As examples I love the ID software game engines and Blender. Others seem happy that Sun dumped the source code of Star Office, which then became OpenOffice and LibreOffice, but then again companies like Collabora are trying to turn it into a shitty webification instead of implementing real collaborative features into the software like what AbiWord has.

    …and back in the real world where you need to buy food. Open Source consultancy, implementation of custom out-of-tree features, support, courses and training, EOL maintainance or products that leaverage Open Source software is my best answer. See Free Software as a commons we all contribute to, so that we can do things with it and built things from it. You should not expect people to pay for Free Software, but you can sell things that take advantage of Free Software as a resource.

  •  lemmyreader   ( @lemmyreader@lemmy.ml ) English
    9•2 months ago

    Three examples of open source software where at least one developer could give up their regular job and work full-time on the open source project. I’m sure there’s more (The Linux kernel maybe ?) :

    In both cases possible because of people donating. The last example is quite remarkable given the personal history of the developer and the fact that it was “just” a fun project with the developer sharing videos about programming for the fun project.

  •  corsicanguppy   ( @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ) 
    3•2 months ago

    As mentioned in books published TWENTY YEARS AGO, many companies working in Open-Source make their money in value-added services and support.

    My side gig has been doing that for the last 22 years.

    And, that’s the number-one answer from chatGPT.

    It’s also totally okay to not blithely jam the words together but to pretend hyphens are a thing.

  •  jlow (he/him)   ( @jlow@beehaw.org ) 
    3•2 months ago

    I think the route of giving it all away for free and either offering hosting if the project needs it or (business) support is the most successful way of doing this.

    I have no problems whatsoever with donation buttons / banners (like Krita does) but I’m afraid random donations is not really a sustainable model for most projects. I try to remember to donate to projects I use a lot (especially if it’s for work) but it is another thing on my todo list and not one with high priority, so I don’t do it as often as I’d like … 😓

    •  onlinepersona   ( @onlinepersona@programming.dev ) OPEnglish
      3•2 months ago

      That’s possibly fine for services, but what happens when a large, well-known competitor decides to offer the service at a lower price (possibly on their own infrastructure), takes away the customers, but doesn’t contribute back?

      Also, how should libraries (aka stuff that can’t be hosted or doesn’t have an interface) be handled?

      Anti Commercial-AI license

      •  jlow (he/him)   ( @jlow@beehaw.org ) 
        1•2 months ago

        Yeah, very good points. A while ago there was talk about some kind of foundation where maintainers could bill their hours and people and big tech companies could donate. Not sure if / how that would work …

        During the xz incident I also talked about this on Mastodon and someone suggested that big tech could just employ maintainers without them having to do anything for the company directly, just work on the project / library the company uses. Again not everybody would want to do that …

        I’m afraid there’s no easy one-fits-all solution here.