211–220 of 251 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of it is, in fact, a static document, basically just a very large README.md file chock full of information. It could be a book.
I don't think projects comparable to books can be at the same time comparable to software
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Applying this business model to every project they use.
Do you PR or raise an issue to every package you use? You can still use 2500 different packages for free. This seems like a good example how it would work well.
Also, the business model is paying a subscription for the right to submit a pull request. Sure, you could wait until you are about to make the PR to buy the subscription, but that's a pain of its own.
Their point here is that this isn't a scalable business model. That's the assertion that started this whole comment thread.
I continue to think that the best model is the one adopted by Fody.NET[0]. It's open-source, on GitHub, under the MIT license, developed in the open, and with a voluntary OpenCollective. And if you open an issue or pull request and you're not on the OpenCollective, it's usually immediately closed, by policy. The result is a system that is paid enough to be excellent, excellent enough for most users not to need suppor…
>And if you open an issue or pull request and you're not on the OpenCollective, it's usually immediately closed, by policy. Issues I can understand. But if I spend time grokking your code, fixing a bug and submitting a PR, and you reject it because you want me to pay you first, I'm dropping your software without a second thought.
> It may seem unfair to expect people both contribute PRs and also financially back this project. However it is important to remember the effort in reviewing and merging a PR is often similar to that of creating the PR. Also the project maintainers are committing to support that added code (feature or bug fix) for the life of the project. Pull Requests from non-Patrons, that are of significant value to the larger Fody user base, may justify the effort in reviewing and merging.
Ultimately if you care enough about Fody to spend over a hundred dollars worth of your time contributing to it, you probably care enough about Fody to drop them three dollars.
I continue to think that the best model is the one adopted by Fody.NET[0]. It's open-source, on GitHub, under the MIT license, developed in the open, and with a voluntary OpenCollective. And if you open an issue or pull request and you're not on the OpenCollective, it's usually immediately closed, by policy. The result is a system that is paid enough to be excellent, excellent enough for most users not to need suppor…
It doesn't work if the project hasn't had any new issues in a while. There is no incentive to be part of the OpenCollective if the project is completed and has no bugs. I've been struggling with this issue with my project. It's a completed project, no scope creep, no bugs, just occasional update once every 6 months or so. The docs are complete and detailed so nobody needs extra help; no one will pay for support At th…
I continue to think that the best model is the one adopted by Fody.NET[0]. It's open-source, on GitHub, under the MIT license, developed in the open, and with a voluntary OpenCollective. And if you open an issue or pull request and you're not on the OpenCollective, it's usually immediately closed, by policy. The result is a system that is paid enough to be excellent, excellent enough for most users not to need suppor…
> And if you open an issue or pull request and you're not on the OpenCollective, it's usually immediately closed, by policy. I don't know enough about the resulting system, but this sounds quite silly and contra-productive. Issues often hint at important flaws. If the community is not open (Ha!) to outsiders notifying them of important flaws, then that is a recipe for bad software. Some people might go there and star…
I've been harping for years to anyone who would listen, Open Source is not a business model [0]. If your motivation for doing open source is money, you're doing it wrong. You'll be much better off just getting a job (and GitHub stars can help with that!). We all know "build it and they will come" and "follow your passion and the money will follow" don't really work in the real world. You have to make something people…
Frankly I don't get purpose of this article. Guy wrote some software with clear expectation of money and released it for free. Fine - bad pick of distribution model - it happens. Then he writes article, stating that you shouldn't be ashamed to ask for money. To whom it's directed? All OSS developers? Including developers of electron (one of his dependencies), which then has tens or hundreds of packages in its depende…
I continue to think that the best model is the one adopted by Fody.NET[0]. It's open-source, on GitHub, under the MIT license, developed in the open, and with a voluntary OpenCollective. And if you open an issue or pull request and you're not on the OpenCollective, it's usually immediately closed, by policy. The result is a system that is paid enough to be excellent, excellent enough for most users not to need suppor…
While I'm always excited about new ways of monetizing open source, if I'm looking at the OpenCollective contribution page for Fody correctly, this model has made them under $10,000 in the past 2 years or so. From a business perspective that's basically a rounding error and nothing compared to what you can do with the conventional approach of selling consulting/support or, heaven forbid, your own proprietary solution.…
I've been harping for years to anyone who would listen, Open Source is not a business model [0]. If your motivation for doing open source is money, you're doing it wrong. You'll be much better off just getting a job (and GitHub stars can help with that!). We all know "build it and they will come" and "follow your passion and the money will follow" don't really work in the real world. You have to make something people…
I've been harping for years to anyone who would listen, Open Source is not a business model [0]. If your motivation for doing open source is money, you're doing it wrong. You'll be much better off just getting a job (and GitHub stars can help with that!). We all know "build it and they will come" and "follow your passion and the money will follow" don't really work in the real world. You have to make something people…
This times a million. I'm not sure when people started thinking that everything they do outside of office hours should have a paid return, but open source is meant to be something you do to help others, if you feel like doing it. It's basically just giving back to the community after creating something interesting for your own purposes. Does that mean it can't help you get opportunities that can make you money? No of…
IMO is about scratching one's own itch first. That said, I'm not good at running a business, and have little motivation to do so. I like what I do, I'm paid pretty well to do it. In the end, that means I'll probably never be a multi-millionaire. If I didn't work for others, I do have a couple projects I'd like to work on, biggest of which would be one that has been tread so many times before.
In the end, it's a mix. Some are completely altruistic with their free time. Others are paid to work on floss as it brings recognition to a corporation, or scratches their own itches, collectively, but doesn't bring direct revenue. And some do want to be Entreprenurial, those are the ones that should think twice about fully open sourcing their core product(s).
Open source the tools and adjacent products, don't necessarily open source your business.