[apex_sloth]

As I understand it, GrayJay is not free (as in they want to be paid, which is I think is reasonable). How does this work with something like AGPL?

I'm curious to hear more, because I'm in the process of evaluating licenses for a software I'm planning to build and sell. For me it's important that users can feel safe with running my code and build it themselves - and keep using the software if I'm no longer around to maintain it. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

[akdev1l]

There’s literally nothing in any open source software license that stops the author from getting paid.

It is literally one of the fundamental freedoms mentioned by Richard Stallman. Freedom to sell the software.

AGPL just closes the cloud service loop where someone can take your code, modify it and deploy it and offer it as a cloud service. As they’re not technically “distributing” the modifications they wouldn’t be required to release their changes by regular GPL but they would by AGPL.

IANAL

[lurkshark]

This comes up occasionally and while it’s 100% true FOSS doesn’t mean you can’t get paid, any sufficiently big project is going to get folks repackaging it without the payment component.

A good example is for-sale Wordpress plugins. There are entire sites/communities for using the FOSS license to take those for-sale plugins and redistributing them for free. The RedHat debacle is another example although with some more nuance. Standard Notes had a similar situation.

It looks like the FUTO license is trying to prevent someone from stripping the payment features and redistributing. Personally I prefer when folks use a FOSS license but I think the “you can get paid for FOSS” argument is overly optimistic.

[lrvick]

As someone that runs a profitable FOSS business, you can indeed get paid well for FOSS. Just be better than the status quo by a lot. Thankfully it is a low bar.

[lurkshark]

I took a look at your bio but after a glance (forgive me if I’m missing something obvious) it looks like you do consulting but I don’t see FOSS for sale. I’m curious what your project is if it’s something else, but if it’s consulting that makes sense. Consulting doesn’t really work for a lot of categories of software though. Like nobody is going to pay FUTO for consulting on following YouTubers.

[lrvick]

We sell support, customization, ensuring packages some people care about most are supported, etc.

Also some people just pay monthly to ensure we stay viable because we save them a lot of work trying to implement and maintain what we do themselves.

Look at all the content creators that make a living on patreon etc. If you give stuff away for free people value but also make it really easy to support you, often people do.

An example outside my projects is Octoprint. Last time the founder had donations public, she was pulling in like 5k/mo for one person just doing FOSS dev for something totally free no one needs consulting for.

Our own projects individually are not that profitable as they are much more niche, so consulting makes much more sense for us.

That said, for projects that are fully open source you can get listed on opencollective so people can make tax deductible donations to specific open source projects, like the stagex project I founded: https://opencollective.com/stagex/donate

If you are going to do something for public good, make it easy for people to justify donating to you for a tax write off!

[apex_sloth]

Interessting point with the tax right off. I asked my boss to donate to a open source software we used a lot in our dev department and he labeled it as license costs because donations aren't something he could argue for (big company tho).

[apex_sloth]

Would you like to elaborate on how you run your FOSS buissness? What makes your approach different than the numerous company's that struggle with it

[madeofpalk]

> as in they want to be paid, which is I think is reasonable

Considering the whole point of this app is to remove monetisation from YouTubers, I think this is completely unreasonable.

[saintfire]

Well that's not actually the point. It's heavily focused on preventing deplatforming creators.

There is much more to monetization than AdSense, which is adblocked away very frequently already. If it wasn't already removed by YouTube for saying something pg-14 or falsely copywright striked.