Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On paying for software

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 279 posts

Re: On paying for software

#11

Post by mikece »

open-source-ux wrote: post #6

Why is it so hard for developers to make a full-time living selling their open-source software? Are the available options stacked against them? Thousands of developers make money building products or services for clients using open source software. But what if you don't want to be a consultant and simply want to charge a business for using your open source product? The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that you can…

Let's look at your examples about Red Hat and GitLab. Managers pay for service contracts from those companies so they have a "throat to choke" if things go sideways so it's not simply their neck on the line. From a CIO's point of view, a service contract is an insurance policy against standing before the CEO or board and saying "I have nobody but myself to blame, I have nobody but my team to fix the issue -- and they don't know how." Typically it's a start-up or a company where the CEO/founders are driving the technical decisions where you find IT using CentOS, PostgreSQL, etc without a support contract... and when there's enough revenue or investors buying that "throat to choke" is part of due diligence in a growing business.

Re: On paying for software

#12

Post by tonyedgecombe »

andmarios wrote: post #2

Most of the “software” mentioned in the post, are actually services (slack, zoom, tidal, etc). For many people, it is easier to accept to pay for a service rather than software. While I do use paid services, I usually “pay” (donate) for free and open source software. Why? It helps me get my work done, support is usually good, I set the price and I know that people who aren't as fortunate as I (being able to afford to…

The marginal cost for software is zero, the marginal cost for services is non-zero. This puts a floor under the price. People don't accept that they have to pay, rather they are given no choice.

Re: On paying for software

#13

Post by mikece »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #3

I see the use of OSS in government services as almost a moral imperative-but the first point seth makes is crippling this "you need money to write the software in the first place" Take voter management software - the preparation of polls, counting of results etc. all this software behind it is afaik propriety but used exclusively by the public sector - which seems mad, and even risky when we look at electronic ballot…

The software might be free, but nobody acquires mission-critical software without a support agreement -- which is certainly not free -- unless they don't value staying employed. We might not like Diebold (or whatever name they go by now) but _someone_ has to be an accountable party for supporting electronic voting systems.

Re: On paying for software

#14

Post by tonyedgecombe »

mherrmann wrote: post #9

As an indie dev of desktop software, I have grown tired of complaints that my products aren't free as in speech and beer. I now reply to such criticism by linking to this post: https://fman.io/blog/dear-comrade/

Interesting that you got downvotes for a statement like this on a forum supposedly rooted in the business of software.

Re: On paying for software

#15

Post by pjmlp »

mherrmann wrote: post #9

As an indie dev of desktop software, I have grown tired of complaints that my products aren't free as in speech and beer. I now reply to such criticism by linking to this post: https://fman.io/blog/dear-comrade/

Love the link.

It is easier to find people willing to pay for software when focusing on Apple and Microsoft platforms.

How has been your experience regarding consumers per platform?

Re: On paying for software

#16

Post by pjmlp »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #14
mherrmann wrote: post #9

As an indie dev of desktop software, I have grown tired of complaints that my products aren't free as in speech and beer. I now reply to such criticism by linking to this post: https://fman.io/blog/dear-comrade/

Interesting that you got downvotes for a statement like this on a forum supposedly rooted in the business of software.

Because most want to get paid, not to pay for the tools they use.

Re: On paying for software

#17

Post by tonyedgecombe »

pjmlp wrote: post #16
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that you got downvotes for a statement like this on a forum supposedly rooted in the business of software.

Because most want to get paid, not to pay for the tools they use.

Exactly, there is some cognitive dissonance going on.

Re: On paying for software

#18

Post by lifeisstillgood »

mikece wrote: post #13
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #3

I see the use of OSS in government services as almost a moral imperative-but the first point seth makes is crippling this "you need money to write the software in the first place" Take voter management software - the preparation of polls, counting of results etc. all this software behind it is afaik propriety but used exclusively by the public sector - which seems mad, and even risky when we look at electronic ballot…

The software might be free, but nobody acquires mission-critical software without a support agreement -- which is certainly not free -- unless they don't value staying employed. We might not like Diebold (or whatever name they go by now) but _someone_ has to be an accountable party for supporting electronic voting systems.

free as in beer is irrelevant - free as in speech that i can read, check verify and is what matters - so i would envisage (and encourage) a network of "certified in using votermachine-oss" contractors that can be called upon or paid for, in a retainer fashion, and most importantly some means of priming the pump

Re: On paying for software

#19

Post by jacobush »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #17
pjmlp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most want to get paid, not to pay for the tools they use.

Exactly, there is some cognitive dissonance going on.

It's because obviously the shit I need to get my shit done should be open source or free by now, sheesh it's 2018 not in the dark ages however of course the serious business need I am fulfilling is novel and very deserving of a good chunk of cash.

Re: On paying for software

#20

Post by mcny »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #7
open-source-ux wrote: post #6

Why is it so hard for developers to make a full-time living selling their open-source software? Are the available options stacked against them? Thousands of developers make money building products or services for clients using open source software. But what if you don't want to be a consultant and simply want to charge a business for using your open source product? The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that you can…

Why is it so hard for developers to make a full-time living selling their open-source software? Do you really expect people to pay for something when they can get it for free? Making software open source means you are either selling something complementary (hardware, other software, services) or else begging for crumbs.

I don't know much about these things and I'm making this up as we go but I wonder if we can use AGPL or a stronger version of AGPL. Basically, you pay for a subscription or everything on your servers that touches this software must be free and open source. Should work for researchers and students and there is a continued revenue stream. For example, require any software that talks to a rest API also be foss. With more people paying, the subscription can slowly become cheaper and more accessible. Thoughts?
Post reply on HN