| > 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. |
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.