[Drdrdrq]

This. The problem with FOSS are incentives which are not aligned.

Sure, some developers will give their best for free... for some time. But sooner or later the going gets tough and maintaining (let alone developing further) your pet project becomes a chore. Will you still do it? For how long? And if you try to monetize the project to at least somehow offset the lost energy and time, and maybe even pay someone else to help you, then you figure out you can't. Because free / open / libre means that anyone can take what you did and run with it.

This is the reason why FOSS projects don't reach the maturity and polish of closed variants. The only exception I can think of is Firefox, because it is able to capitalize on its unique position where it threatens (a bit) Google Search. With Google also making its biggest rival.

And the end result is that while the FOSS software is free (as in freedom), its quality leaves much to be desired, so the users are not flocking to it. Far from it.

Until FOSS movement rethinks what "freedom" is, nothing is going to change for better. Maybe giving Commons Clause and other hybrid licenses a chance could be a way out? I don't know, but it makes me sad that I'm typing this on a closed phone without (realistic) choice.

[michaelmrose]

Android especially the google variants are pretty open and unlocked. The librem phone is due in Q3 of this year.

If you crowd fund development instead of try to sell consulting or a premium version then Amazon can't pull the rug out from under you by offering hosting and support because you aren't in that business. You may never have an IPO or make a <doctor evil>billion dollars</doctor evil> but if as the song says we "Try just a little bit harder" We may be able to offer sustainable income from making free software.

The common clause licenses isn't a "hybrid" its a proprietary software license. Calling it a hybrid is like saying a BLT without the bacon, lettuce, or tomato is a sandwich. It's not a solution its giving up.

[Drdrdrq]

> The common clause licenses isn't a "hybrid" its a proprietary software license. Calling it a hybrid is like saying a BLT without the bacon, lettuce, or tomato is a sandwich. It's not a solution its giving up.

Well, it's more like tiramisu with chocolate instead of coffee. In the end, as a user, I would prefer a convenient and polished product (that I can't sell) to worse product that respects some other people's definition of supposedly my freedoms.

Agree that crowd funding is another way, yes. Probably works for very few projects (font awesome comes to mind) though.

[michaelmrose]

Why would a license that discourages any community participation result in a more polished experience?

Got any examples?

[Drdrdrq]

Why do you think it discourages any community participation?

It does put some restrictions regarding the license for modifications (it must be permissive, or CLA needs to be signed), but anyone can fork, maintain or share their copy. They just can't make money by selling it, without also paying to original authors. Which seems fair to me.

Should contributors also be somehow compensated? Bigger ones, absolutely. How? I have no idea, but there's at least some chance of that happening with Commons Clause, while with FOSS there is none.

As for examples... From Commons Clause? No. But since Redis Labs changed the license for their modules I'm not aware of any projects using it. Unfortunately.

There are plenty examples in closed source space though... Windows, MacOS, Photoshop, Illustrator, Trello, GitHub.

[michaelmrose]

There is interest in contributing to open source projects fake open source not so much.

[zanny]

This is such a close minded view of the world that the only way to monetize software is to violate software freedoms to do so.

The valuable good in exchange is the developers time, not the code itself - nation states have constructed a goliath IP apparatus to impair the natural capacity to instantly and infinitely replicate information. But its wholly fictional and fabricated - its just an outdated paradigm from the era of the commoditization of the printing press where there were still marginal costs that could endanger businesses to overspend on.

There are many ways to monetize your time while creating liberated code in the process, but that is where the focus must be in the free software ecosystem.

[Drdrdrq]

> This is such a close minded view of the world that the only way to monetize software is to violate software freedoms to do so.

Ok, I don't even agree with your definition of freedoms, but I'll bite anyway. Do you have an example of a different approach? RedHat? Selling services, FOSS is just a by-product. Mozilla? Yes, though its position is very unique, and they are the only ones who really have incentives aligned with their users'. Redis? Mongo? MariaDB? Their change of license tells everything.

If it didn't work for myriad of projects in the past, maybe there's a problem with the approach?

As for other things... You must be living in a very different world from mine. (edit: this was not meant in a bad way... just an observation)

[zanny]

Many popular programs are now seeing continuous paid development by patronage including Godot, Krita, Blender, GIMP, and OBS.

It is unsettling that they all get this success on a proprietary middle man that siphons a portion of the money in the form of Patreon, but the principle is absolutely applicable to development in general. Right now its regular people paying to have software they want to use developed - game engines, art tools, etc - but nothing should stop a culture shift from getting both corporations and private developers to start paying in a similar way for libraries and infrastructure given the means to correlate the added value in doing so.

[Crinus]

> Many popular programs are now seeing continuous paid development by patronage including Godot, Krita, Blender, GIMP, and OBS.

Godot=$10k/month (patreon) Krita=$2k/month (their donation page) Blender=€31k/month (their fund page) GIMP=individual donations only for two developers, $1k/month and $595/month each OBS=$3.5k/month from opencollective, $1.5k/month for the lead developer for patreon

Now, i do not know what sort of standards you have, but to me considering the amount of effort needed to create the software you mentioned these sound like pittance with the exception of OBS (and even then the developer would get a lot more money if he worked as a developer on a regular company... in some places even as a junior).

$10k/month for a game engine of the complexity of Godot? For Unity that would be absolute failure even back when the editor was available only on Mac OS X.

$2k/month for an advanced complex image editor and painting application? Even in the 80s (and ignoring inflation) that would be a cause to close shop for any software development company.

Blender needs to reach €50k/month to hire 10 developers full time? I'm curious what part of that €5k/month actually goes to the developer.

I'm not going to comment on GIMP, it should be obvious how ridiculous those numbers are.

Look, these numbers are actually the proof of how bad the economic side of FLOSS development is. These are jokes compared to even a small startup, let alone projects that exist years for software used by hundreds of thousands (if not millions, for some).

Developers who work on those aren't doing it for the money, they are doing it because they love the work. If you want to monetize your work, FLOSS is not the way to go, especially as an independent individual.

[Drdrdrq]

True. It's funny when those who rave against the licenses that might actually help change these problems, also publish their donations' summaries. Funny in a sad way, that is.