this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
565 points (97.5% liked)

Memes

49990 readers
1 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

redirect a bit more of it to the devs and you get a bigger and better ecosystem.

make it free for non-commercial use. this works even as a business model of sorts.

[–] fum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's no longer open source if you restrict commercial usage. Sure, licence your software that way if you want to, but don't call it open source.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

is ubuntu not open source then? or libreoffice?

if so, sure.

[–] fum@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ubuntu and LibreOffice are both free for commercial use. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

canonical and libreoffice are examples of companies that do commercial support contracts. proxmox is an example of free for personal use, but paid for businesses.

im talking about licensing and business models, by giving a few examples of how devs can be paid while being free and open for users, but paid somehow for companies. and how that doesnt necessarily mean it has to be closed.

[–] fum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I see what you mean. Yes there are great examples like those that offer support contracts for the open source software projects.

I think one point of confusion here is that as open source licenced projects, they do not restrict commercial use. The companies that lead the development just happen to also offer the best paid support.

Minor correction: proxmox is AGPL so free to use commercially without their support contract.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

i usually advocate for a more restrictive license for commercial use, to avoid openssl type situations. where huge corpos will take it, use it to build big infrastructure without compensating the creator at all, and not even bothering to help with maintenance.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, I would love that but let me see if I can play devils advocate and get productive responses that work in the capitalistic world we are stuck in.

Why would a company pay a team millions of dollars annually to give it away for free. That destines their entire company for failure in their mind. They get no kick backs other than a thank you note for doing so... Which means nothing to their bottom line but down.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

i think you misunderstood it.

take a look at libreoffice, proxmox, pfsense, flexiwan, canonical, redhat if you want an example of this business model actually working, at different stages of success.