No Free Features
landshark.io
No Free Features
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: No Free Features
#2There is at least one SaaS tool for this (that takes its own cut too, of course) - the name escapes me - but rather than require that the change requestor put up the full sum, it allows multiple people to chip in ('+1 I have this problem too', but with cash) so rather than sort by #people affected as some projects do (proxied by +1s on the original post in the issue usually) they could sort by #currencyunits that the community is willing to pay, which clearly isn't necessarily the same as the issue that is annoying most people.
I think GitHub also marks that a commenter (or issue opener) is a 'Sponsor' if you use that system.
Re: No Free Features
#3100% agree. "Sorry, but I don't work for free, consider sponsoring the project" should be a perfectly legitimate reason to reject a request on an open source project.
Re: No Free Features
#4There is at least one SaaS tool for this (that takes its own cut too, of course) - the name escapes me - but rather than require that the change requestor put up the full sum, it allows multiple people to chip in ('+1 I have this problem too', but with cash) so rather than sort by #people affected as some projects do (proxied by +1s on the original post in the issue usually) they could sort by #currencyunits that the…
+$1
Re: No Free Features
#5There is at least one SaaS tool for this (that takes its own cut too, of course) - the name escapes me - but rather than require that the change requestor put up the full sum, it allows multiple people to chip in ('+1 I have this problem too', but with cash) so rather than sort by #people affected as some projects do (proxied by +1s on the original post in the issue usually) they could sort by #currencyunits that the…
Is like a service that allows the devs to basically make an offer of what they will implement it for. Bonus points if the dev can give an hour estimate so the requestor can make a case with their employee for paying up based on the good hourly rate they are getting.
Re: No Free Features
#6100% agree. "Sorry, but I don't work for free, consider sponsoring the project" should be a perfectly legitimate reason to reject a request on an open source project.
The reason that response is so rare is that people forgot the origin of open source. Once I solve my problem, it costs me nothing to give you the solution.
If you just want me to solve your problem when I don't also have it, you need to compensate me for my time.
Re: No Free Features
#7100% agree. "Sorry, but I don't work for free, consider sponsoring the project" should be a perfectly legitimate reason to reject a request on an open source project.
Sure, but what's a reasonable price to offer? $1? $10? $100? At what point does it not make sense for the end-user to sponsor a FOSS project in order to bring it up to feature parity with a proprietary equivalent if it costs more to pay for the feature than just buying the proprietary version?
To use a real-world example, I used to use a program called Tag&Rename for managing my mp3 metadata for years.[0] It had a method of scraping Amazon for album info, which I loved. When I switched to Linux, I switched over to EasyTag[1], which is a fine program, although I still find T&R still easier to use, and I miss the Amazon integration.
I would be willing to pay up to $30 to get Amazon scraping into EasyTag, because I believe in the long-term benefits of well-supported FOSS software. But beyond that, it's hard to justify, because I could just as easily pay $30 and run T&R under Wine/in a VM.
[0] http://www.softpointer.com/tr.htm [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/EasyTAG
Re: No Free Features
#8> Requesting work in an economic context without offering compensation in some form is morally indefensible.
Not even close to all open source work is in an economic context though.
Re: No Free Features
#9100% agree. "Sorry, but I don't work for free, consider sponsoring the project" should be a perfectly legitimate reason to reject a request on an open source project.
Sure, but what's a reasonable price to offer? $1? $10? $100? At what point does it not make sense for the end-user to sponsor a FOSS project in order to bring it up to feature parity with a proprietary equivalent if it costs more to pay for the feature than just buying the proprietary version? To use a real-world example, I used to use a program called Tag&Rename for managing my mp3 metadata for years.[0] It had a me…
It's basically a market question. Either side should be able to make an offer and you either agree on a mutually beneficial price or not.
Re: No Free Features
#10How often do the faang companies actually make change requests to these projects? My understanding, not working in the space, is that they will many times upstream improvements they develop. But I wasn't aware that they were hitting oss authors with a deluge of unpaid change requests.
Now I know that reviewing an upstreamed change is also work. That's a big part of my job at work so I could hardly fail to recognize it. It would be completely reasonable to apply this policy even to code reviews. Of course in that event forking the project might be exactly what the companies would do, and I'm not sure if that would be a preferable outcome from the perspective of oss authors either.