[ary]

Why not sell licenses? Perhaps they could have nominal benefits that are low impact on the maintainer, like early access to various things? Maybe foosel doesn't want to run a business, but given the choice between doing what I love and avoiding some administrative overhead I think I'd always choose the former.

I'm reminded of what happened to the creators of Dwarf Fortress and it's hard not to recommend some form of commercialization for projects that need financial support.

[mholt]

I've learned from personal experience that people don't like it when you start selling licenses to open source software.

[godelski]

It's really a shame, especially on a website like this. I can understand being frustrated with things, but we need some nuance a lot of times.

I'm not sure why we need to have holy wars over what is "open source" and rather recognize that it's a scale. Importantly, if an opensource operation can't be funded being unquestionably open source, then I see no issue making transitions like you suggested or the "free to user, cost to companies" method (how is that worth a holy war?). It's an extra shame given the average salary (current or future) of someone on this website. If you're not struggling, pony up, if you are, then I'm not sure how you don't have compassion.

After all, isn't the open source dream we all have about open communities, code, and everything? If we can't perfectly achieve that due to environmental constraints, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That just discourages any other "open source" projects, by whatever definition you use. Mostly open is still better than fully closed, right?

[note to holy war people] I'll accept holy wars if you show me receipts that you fund >25% of the open source tools you use. That's a low enough bar, right?

[kiba]

If I make money off open source, I'll start paying more. As it is, I donate 5 bucks a month to OpenSCAD. I also bought printers from Prusa, so that already counted as supporting open source. That's thousand of dollars and increasing.

What I haven't done yet is to earn a single dollars doing anything related to 3D printing and design work.

Mostly open is still better than fully closed, right?

The dream is that commerce and open source aren't in direct opposition to each other.

We do that by finding the right business models, not compromising our values.

[godelski]

> If I make money off open source, I'll start paying more. As it is, I donate 5 bucks a month to OpenSCAD.

I'll refer you back to my zealot note. The question isn't about if you're making money from the product but if you use the produce and have the means to donate. If you got a big tech job and you're only donating only $60/yr to open source projects then I'm not sure you have a horse to sit on. You probably pay a lot more for things you probably use a lot less. If not, I'm not sure what I said to that compelled you to defend yourself.

> The dream is that commerce and open source aren't in direct opposition to each other.

Yes, the dream is post-scarcity or being independently wealthy, which in either case one can just work for fun. But transitioning to post-scarcity is an incredibly disruptive process that has the capacity to hurt a lot of people before it benefits so many. But until then, people need money so I'm not sure what conversation we're trying to have here.

> We do that by finding the right business models, not compromising our values.

See the above where I mentioned someone previously try unquestionably open source and failed, as is the context around octoprint. The __only__ business model for that is relying on donations. You got an alternative that you'd like to enlighten us? One that doesn't "compromise values?" (I don't see the business pay option as compromising but it's not an uncommon discussion here. Hence the specific call out)

Let's be straight, it's not compromising values if you're forced into a position: that's coercion.

[kiba]

I'll refer you back to my zealot note. The question isn't about if you're making money from the product but if you use the produce and have the means to donate. If you got a big tech job and you're only donating only $60/yr to open source projects then I'm not sure you have a horse to sit on. You probably pay a lot more for things you probably use a lot less. If not, I'm not sure what I said to that compelled you to defend yourself.

As I mentioned before, I paid thousand of dollars for Prusa products, which supports open hardware and support their slicer software. Though I have to note they seemed to waver a little on open hardware.

But fair enough, I paid 60 bucks a year currently for an open source software project. I should contribute more, and I have started supporting Octoprint before your reply. It's a pittance, but it's a start.

Yes, the dream is post-scarcity or being independently wealthy, which in either case one can just work for fun. But transitioning to post-scarcity is an incredibly disruptive process that has the capacity to hurt a lot of people before it benefits so many. But until then, people need money so I'm not sure what conversation we're trying to have here.

Not sure where you're going with that. Earning money with open source is the dream. I don't mean being supported by basic income or welfare, although I wouldn't be opposed to it, but in being able to bootstrap myself.

I don't have a sustainable open source career, and I am bad at business. I am working on that.

(I don't see the business pay option as compromising but it's not an uncommon discussion here. Hence the specific call out)

Businesses paying, corporate sponsorship, and support service, even software sale, are all perfectly fine and compatible with open source and free software philosophy...if it remains completely open source.

Let's be straight, it's not compromising values if you're forced into a position: that's coercion.

I am not sure what you mean by here. Open source developers doesn't have the right or expectation to expect being able to make a living, same as being a proprietary developer.

If you're not willing to make open source software for a living, then you're doing something else. Open source adjacent, open core, or just a plain old boring job at a proprietary software firm, whatever. You have the right to make a living under the current paradigm, but I'll keep searching for the business models that support my values.

[quickthrower2]

Let them not like it? Also SaaS is an option.

[snuxoll]

Nothing wrong with selling supported binaries. Bug reports are a valuable contribution to any project, but if you want your issue prioritized then paying $$$ is a fair ask. I'd say lock binaries behind a paywall altogether, but that's not going to stop packagers from putting it in distro repositories or AUR (without a non-open source license, at least).

[_xivi]

> but if you want your issue prioritized then paying $$$ is a fair ask

The problem usually is that this will cause a conflict of interest with the maintainer role. Leading to demise of the open-source/community side, and the rise of better alternatives while you're busy navigating this transaction and trying to balance the stick.

I'm just saying that I haven't seen much successful examples of projects that went down that route.