Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by blowski 3561 days ago
The OP said they're happy to pay for it. Open source doesn't necessarily imply zero cost.
2 comments
ternaryoperator 3561 days ago
>Open source doesn't necessarily imply zero cost.

While it's true you can charge for your OSS product, all OSS licenses allow the recipient to distribute the source code (and the built binaries) at no cost. So, OSS does imply free, even if it doesn't mandate it.

link
baldfat 3561 days ago
The source code not compiled code.
link
dewiz 3561 days ago
actually:

>> Just please consider making it free software for all of us

link
blowski 3561 days ago
> I wish the Sublime Text people open sourced their code. I'd _buy_ it from them in that event. (Emphasis is mine)

I took that to mean the OP wanted it to be "free as in freedom" not "free as in beer".

link
Biganon 3561 days ago
Free software doesn't imply gratuity (and neither does open source)
link
pjmlp 3561 days ago
How many GNU/Linux users pay for their distributions?
link
gravypod 3561 days ago
I'd pay for a distribution if it was better then free (cost) software.

For instance, if Apple decided today "Hey why not just make OSX a set of applications, a window manager, and a desktop environment for Linux and make it free software." I'd pay for it. I'd pay the 100 bucks because no one really does UX better then Apple.

link