|
|
|
|
|
|
by tarsinge
1546 days ago
|
|
|
Sure I don’t disagree, I think I was too broad. I’m talking about only a subset of projects that are not just free work put out there, but actively promoted as some serious building block with a business agenda behind like personal brand building. There is OSS and OSS, I’m not talking about FreeBSD, Linux or PostgreSQL types, but projects that are part of a company marketing strategy or resume building and kind of white lie about their seriousness. My issue is with marketing, promises and expectations, and not OSS as it is to its roots. Edit: for a concrete example, I agree with you in the case of say curl, but not for React. Also tangentially I don’t buy into the binary distinction “it’s free it can be poison I can’t complain / I paid it’s my right to be an entitled asshole”. The cost is irrelevant with the promise for me, the first cent doesn’t have magical entitlement, and its absence is not a free pass to (white) lie. |
|
|
There is no binary distinction and it isn't about the amount of money per se.
What you're missing is that full extent of what you can expect is spelled out in the license.
Whether it's an open source license or a commercial one, a common one or a custom one. If you don't prefer the terms of the default license, attempt to negotiate a different one. You can always negotiate. If you expect more, expect to pay more.
There is no clause in any license (that I've ever seen) that says if this project is more popular or shows up more often in search results then the license grants the recipients more support. That's not how it works. Read the license, that's what you get, nothing more.