151–160 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no downgrade option on Google Play Store?
Nope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't talk about open source if you don't understand it. Paid binaries are the oldest form of OSS monetization. Is the source open and with a OSS-compatible licence? Then it's open source, not freeware nor shareware. Red Hat has nagging too.
I do understand OS. Read the preamble of gpl this explains the _purpose_ of os. The _goal_ of open source is to provide free software. Software that is free to _use_ now, and in the future, not _just_ free to get the source, free to use. If you don't provide free software (and free build processes) it's not compliant with Open Source licences. Paid binaries are permitted but you must be _willing_ to to give away your…
Don't enter your license key and you'll see
Why does CentOS exist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if its Open Source it should be free of charge. Open Source means something, not just that the source code is available.
> Yes, if its Open Source it should be free of charge. Nope. > Open Source means something, not just that the source code is available. That the source is openly licensed. Providing paid version is a different thing.
"there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable _reproduction_ cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge"
The software itself MUST be free, and the _reproduction_ costs reasonable.
You cannot add clauses that make me pay money or restrict my use. It must be free as in beer to use and redistribute either modified or in its original form.
When you pay for a copy you don't buy rights to use the open source software, you already had them. You buy the paper it's printed on.
And you can't deliberately make it hard for me to compile either.
Arguably nagware is that.
If you own _all_ the rights you can also release a version for cash, but if you then tell people that you are selling them open source software, and you sell them a version for which the source code is not freely available you are breaking the law/rules.
Even if that change is just removing the nagware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree. OpenSource but without the free as in beer. You have to pay if you don't want orange. They should try the service model every one else works on. App Stores are slightly responsible for reducing devs monetization options.
You or anyone can fork it, right?
Why do all calendar apps put months next to each other, instead of using a continuous vertically scrollable view with them on top of each other? It's maddening! Actually Google got this right at one point - but then they reverted to the stupid way!!
Business Calendar Pro uses a continuous vertically scrollable view for months. I love it.
I see a number of comments here complaining that these apps cost money on the Play Store. To all of you, I say, the developer of these apps owes you nothing. You are entitled. These apps are a product built over a period of years largely buy a single developer. This developer has chosen to embrace Free Software and releases the entire source code to the pro-versions of these apps in order to allow you both audit them…
Dude makes some android apps, decide to release them on Android for free, even sharing the code. Then he DARES to charge end users for downloading pro versions of the apps from the official Google Play store... while still making Available the functionality in the source code and in f-droid.
And people are complaining??
IMHO This is the best scenario a developer could provide with his software.
I have used some of these on and off. In general, they are simple and functional and seem to be well made and privacy respecting ... but they are only "free" if you don't mind the nag screen and the orange theme which can only be changed in the purchased version. What I don't like about purchased apps is the fact that you have to pay again for every upgrade. And I have to pay twice since I use 2 phones --- one privat…
> they are only "free" if you don't mind the nag screen and the orange theme which can only be changed in the purchased version Wow, add a gimmick as a little perk to those who donate without actually impairing functionality for free users and next thing people will comment on how annoying it is that the color orange can't be changed. I've never before heard someone complain that a color can't be changed in an app, i…
People complaining about it is just complain to complain.
One of the very few apps I actually paid for. The mental peace that comes with not leaking my data to yet another calendar application alone was worth it. I find this business model lot more sensible than demanding that open-source developers should eternally martyr themselves. You can see the effect of this in the feature set of these applications. If you are the semi-paranoid kind, the following stack of opensource…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, if its Open Source it should be free of charge. Nope. > Open Source means something, not just that the source code is available. That the source is openly licensed. Providing paid version is a different thing.
Read the manual "there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable _reproduction_ cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge" The software itself MUST be free, and the _reproduction_ costs reasonable. You cannot add clauses that make me pay money or restrict my use. It must be free as in beer to use and redistribute either modified or in its original fo…
>you sell them a version for which the source code is not freely available
But the source code IS freely available. All the nagware/restrictions/whatever is in there as a build option. Play Store builds have them enabled unless you buy a license, F-Droid & GitHub builds have them disabled.
In any case it seems you're mistaken about what free software exactly entails, and what is and is not allowed by GPL. For a TL;DR refer to the ones behind it.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLCommercially
>You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am an oss dev. I make a living at my day job.
Same here. As a result, the vast majority of my programming effort goes into my day job, and my OSS projects are critically understaffed. Which works okay for me and my projects, but if I wanted them to be serious players in the market rather than just side projects, I would need to find a way to earn money in a way which doesn't eat most of my time. Personally, I want FOSS software to be able to be serious players i…
I agree. I do not see anything wrong with earning money from open source software, lots of companies do it. Open source is always good for transparency than proprietary closed software. We should support open source devs to be successful, as you said, to go against proprietary monopolies.