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

Krita fund has no corporate support

fund.krita.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 223 posts

Re: Krita fund has no corporate support

#171

Post by pavon »

At my workplace a common theme is that folks that use a piece of software heavily as part of their job use the big professional tools both because it is worth paying more for a better tool considering how much value they get out of it, and because it aids in collaborating for everyone to use the same tools.

People who only use a tool occasionally are the ones using Paint.net, Krita, Inkspace, Audacity, etc. Part of that is to save money, but a much bigger part is that it's too much hassle to go through procurement when it isn't absolutely necessary. More hours would be spent paying for the tool then would be spent using it.

That makes it a hard sell to get corporate donations. From the corporate perspective, the tool is completely off their radar because their employees are using it to intentionally bypass corporate bureaucracy.

Re: Krita fund has no corporate support

#172

Post by itomato »

lars_francke wrote: post #7

I want someone to build this: SBOM (Software Bill of Materials) are slowly becoming ubiquitus around the world due to regulation. I want to be able to aggregate all SBOMs within my company, have a small tool that scans my machine and creates a SBOM for all Open Source tools I use (e.g. Firefox, VLC etc.), uploads that to my corporate registry. This data is then submitted to a donation aggregator which analyzes those…

You get this upstream as part of the system inventory and manage the delta with your change management

Re: Krita fund has no corporate support

#173

Post by lsferreira42 »

mrbump wrote: post #6
Maken wrote: post #3

But they can already support like one and a half full time developers. Krita future looks bright.

Are they really paying a full time developer only 3000 €/month?

3000 €/month is a 16k salary in Brazil this make you top 1% earners in the country!

Re: Krita fund has no corporate support

#174

Post by orblivion »

zoogeny wrote: post #170
lars_francke wrote: post #7

I want someone to build this: SBOM (Software Bill of Materials) are slowly becoming ubiquitus around the world due to regulation. I want to be able to aggregate all SBOMs within my company, have a small tool that scans my machine and creates a SBOM for all Open Source tools I use (e.g. Firefox, VLC etc.), uploads that to my corporate registry. This data is then submitted to a donation aggregator which analyzes those…

I think the devil is in the details. As others have pointed out, this would drastically change the incentive structure of OSS. You would attract actors whose entire purpose would be to get listed on as many SBOMs as possible to maximize their revenue potential. I'm envisioning a world of `padLeft` controversies. That is to say, I don't think a pure "frequency of use" metric is sufficient to fairly distribute such a p…

`padLeft` can't just inject itself into a software stack right? So there's an incentive to be valuable enough to be included.

Re: Krita fund has no corporate support

#175

Post by orlandohill »

cornholio wrote: post #157
orlandohill wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the PolyForm Noncommercial License and the Prosperity Public License are irrevocable. There is no lock-in. Everyone gets the code, just like with an OSI-approved "open source" license. Dual commercial/non-commercial licensing like this is a simple way to require commercial users to fund the further development and maintenance of the software.

They are irrevocable, but they also disallow commercial redistribution of modified copies - in perpetuity. This means that when the original vendor changes new versions of the software to a draconic proprietary license (as is their right as the full owner of the copyright), the community can't fork an older version and keep it up to date and distribute that; they can just use older versions until they become obsolete…

The commercial license typically grants the right to sublicense the software as part of a larger piece of software that can be sold commercially.

Both commercial and non-commercial users can copy, modify, and redistribute modified and unmodified copies. Again, there is no lock-in.

There's little incentive for the developers to switch from dual commercial/non-commercial licensing of the source code to only distributing compiled executables. The whole point of choosing the dual licensing model is that it's more attractive to customers. You wouldn't want to use such a model if you were trying to keep trade secrets, but in such a case you wouldn't consider using an open source license either.

Further reading:

https://duallicensing.com/ https://indieopensource.com/public-private/indies

Re: Krita fund has no corporate support

#176

Post by JumpCrisscross »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #151
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lot of businesses that are great for a small shop and will make a lot of money, but they have no potential to grow larger You’re describing businesses without economies of scale. They can compete simply by being local.

Scale seems relative here, no? Scaling to serve a few nearby countries is still some sort of scale, just not worldwide scale.

Economies of scale can plateau, yes. In those cases I’d argue there’s a niche for a medium-sized company. (Most law is in this category.) But if there are further economies of scale, the company that seizes the worldwide market will simply have lower costs and more R&D capital to work with.

Re: Krita fund has no corporate support

#178

Post by danShumway »

yuukisenshi wrote: post #165

The problem here to me is that Krita is simply a mess. Krita is supposedly part of the KDE project, which is committed to switching to wayland, but has 0 wayland support. In practice, that means that if you use other input devices they can have bugs that make it unusable. So it's Linux story is weak. A very bad start for a KDE app...but at least maybe on Windows it works well. Well the problem then is it does the cla…

I don't have a huge amount of experience with Krita's Wayland performance because the situation on Wayland is still sub-optimal for art in general. Tablet support has gotten much better, but configuration per-app or tied to the desktop environment still seems to be a big issue. The idea that my tablet configuration might stop working if I switch off of a desktop environment is kind of a non-starter to me. It stinks because I really want to use Wayland, but even as recently as a month ago I tried to see if I could make the switch and couldn't.

Truthfully, if someone has a lot of money to dump around, devoting a few full-time developers or dropping cash on https://github.com/OpenTabletDriver/OpenTabletDriver would probably go a long way towards encouraging Wayland adoption from artists.

As far as I can tell the issue is not that Wayland can't do tablet control on the same level as X11, it's that the tools built around those capabilities still seem immature. OpenTabletDriver looks very promising but seems to have limited device support, limited in no small part by what tablets the devs have access to (my Cintiq 32 is unlikely to get added any time soon because it is no longer being sold and was expensive and uncommon when it was on the market -- which probably means I should try to do it, but it's been tough to find the time).

The NVIDIA situation is also a problem, but there's nothing anyone can do about that other than yell at NVIDIA more.

----

> The text tool is a joke.

The text tool should see considerable improvement soon; the entire text engine got rewritten in the last release, the devs just only had time to get it to feature parity with the existing tools.

Re: Krita fund has no corporate support

#179

Post by VyseofArcadia »

orblivion wrote: post #174
zoogeny wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the devil is in the details. As others have pointed out, this would drastically change the incentive structure of OSS. You would attract actors whose entire purpose would be to get listed on as many SBOMs as possible to maximize their revenue potential. I'm envisioning a world of `padLeft` controversies. That is to say, I don't think a pure "frequency of use" metric is sufficient to fairly distribute such a p…

`padLeft` can't just inject itself into a software stack right? So there's an incentive to be valuable enough to be included.

Depends on how you do the accounting. "Well, you don't use padLeft, but 15 packages you depend on do, and 68 packages tjat those packages depend on do... Altogether you're looking at 348 instances of padLeft."

Re: Krita fund has no corporate support

#180

Post by bee_rider »

zoogeny wrote: post #170
lars_francke wrote: post #7

I want someone to build this: SBOM (Software Bill of Materials) are slowly becoming ubiquitus around the world due to regulation. I want to be able to aggregate all SBOMs within my company, have a small tool that scans my machine and creates a SBOM for all Open Source tools I use (e.g. Firefox, VLC etc.), uploads that to my corporate registry. This data is then submitted to a donation aggregator which analyzes those…

I think the devil is in the details. As others have pointed out, this would drastically change the incentive structure of OSS. You would attract actors whose entire purpose would be to get listed on as many SBOMs as possible to maximize their revenue potential. I'm envisioning a world of `padLeft` controversies. That is to say, I don't think a pure "frequency of use" metric is sufficient to fairly distribute such a p…

I wonder if it would be enough to just recursively pay out to each dependency.

You pick a % to keep and a % to pass along to each of your your dependencies, and then they split up that % that you passed along to them, so on and so forth.

Of course people could choose to pass 0% along to their dependencies. But that seems fine; people can adjust and just not send greedy projects a very big split.

Trying to enforce some fairness on the outside will probably just result in silly behavior from greedy people (ie, if every project gets an equal split out and somebody doesn’t want to hand any money down to their dependencies, then they can just create a bunch of tiny projects to dilute their out-split).

Post reply on HN