The Open Source Definition
opensource.org
Introduction Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution The licens…

There has been a lot of talk about companies and individuals adopting licenses that aren’t OSI opensource to protect themselves from mega-corp leechers. Developers have also been condemned who put donation notices in the command-line or during package installation. Projects with opensource cores and paid extensions have also been targets of vitriol.

So, let’s say we wanted to make it possible for the majority of developers to work on software that strictly follows the definition of opensource, which models would be acceptable to make enough money to work on those projects full-time?

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      1·
      7 months ago

      The best solution for a lot of problems. Imagine how awesome OSS could be if any dev could work on it at least part-time while still being able to eat and pay rent/mortgage.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1·
    7 months ago

    My partner is on SSDI for disability. If she works, she will lose her SSDI income, but she’s allowed to generate income that isn’t work/labor.

    She is exploring FOSS as a career path because she could accept donations and that wouldn’t impact her SSDI. She understands donations would be minimal, but she’s hoping it’s a way for her to break into the FOSS scene.

  • smpl@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    1·
    7 months ago

    WARNING. Everything other than the last paragraph is kind of rude and opinionated, so skip to the bottom if you only want practical advice and not a philosophical rant.

    First of all Free Software don’t need paid developers. We scruffy hackers create software because it’s fun. I have a strong suspicion that the commercialization of Free Software via the businessfriendly clothing “Open Source” is actually creating a lot of shitty software or at least a lot of good software that’ll be obsoleted to keep business going. Capitalization of Free Software doesn’t have an incentive to create good finished software, quite the opposite. The best open source software from commercial entities is in my opinion those that were open sourced when a product was no longer profitable as a proprietary business. As examples I love the ID software game engines and Blender. Others seem happy that Sun dumped the source code of Star Office, which then became OpenOffice and LibreOffice, but then again companies like Collabora are trying to turn it into a shitty webification instead of implementing real collaborative features into the software like what AbiWord has.

    …and back in the real world where you need to buy food. Open Source consultancy, implementation of custom out-of-tree features, support, courses and training, EOL maintainance or products that leaverage Open Source software is my best answer. See Free Software as a commons we all contribute to, so that we can do things with it and built things from it. You should not expect people to pay for Free Software, but you can sell things that take advantage of Free Software as a resource.

  • Deckweiss@lemmy.world
    0·
    7 months ago

    Personally I like the following two approaches:

    1. Free and open source for selfhosting, paid when hosted by the company (e.g Nextcloud, gitea, cal.com)

    2. Free and open source with basic features, paid for proprietary business addons (e.g Portmaster, Xpipe)

    I think those approaches are fully compatible with the open source definition, but please correct me if I am wrong. (The examples I mentioned are just some of which I personally know and use, but of course they are many others)

      • NoneYa@lemm.ee
        1·
        7 months ago

        Also cost for commercial use, free for personal use.

        I like this because it allows me a chance to test the full version at my job and then we purchase the full version when we’re sure we want it.