[imiric]

Like I said, it's crucial for the developer to be fair about it. Running a sustainable business built on open source is entrepreneurship on hard mode. Some companies do a better job at this than others, and, unfortunately, open source has been abused as a marketing strategy on many occasions.

No matter how you look at it, though, any business model that enables users to use open source software is a much better option for users than any proprietary software. There's no comparison. Given the choice, I'd much rather use OSS that is eventually rugpulled or enshittified than proprietary software, which carries those same risks, while also restricting my freedoms from the get-go, and having additional risks I might not be aware of at all (exploiting my data, security issues, etc.).

[nchmy]

They're not even running a business on this - its literally registered as a 501c3 nonprofit. Its a labour of love that theyve shared with the world, and they actively tell people that the pro features are unnecessary for most projects. If you want those features or just want to support the project, the cost is quite fair, and just goes to things like traveling to do conference talks etc... They are not getting rich off of this.

Also, they intend for v1, which will be released soon-ish to be essentially the final version of Datastar. There wont be a need for much further development. So there's minimal risk of "rugpull" or even abandonment.

[imiric]

That's admirable. They just gained another sponsor. :)

I do think that they should be paid for this work, and be able to sustain themselves from it. So I wouldn't be against it being a business, or the project having a subscription model. The idea of open source being gratis, and products in general being "free", has done enough harm to the world.

[andersmurphy]

100% so many projects have died because they didn't have a longterm plan to keep the lights on other than hoping for donations and or offering support that no one needed (the better the project the less likely you need support).

[limagnolia]

If they are charging for features, those features are a business, even if its a nonprofit business. There is also precedent for the IRS to consider it unrelated business income and to make them pay taxes on it, but that seems to be a huge grey area in US tax law.

[withinboredom]

LOL. What US tax law?

[limagnolia]

See for eaxmple the Mozilla IRS dispute as an example. Mozilla resolved this by putting their money making endeavors into a for profit org, which is in turn owned by the nonprofit, but the for profit org pays tax on their income. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/unrelated-business... See also

[withinboredom]

My point is that this administration isn’t really doing much enforcement.

[andersmurphy]

Yeah it's a weird one people complain about open source projects having extra features you can pay for. But, then they also complain when you make open source GPL.

I'm sure it would be the same group complaining if it was GPL too.