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

Open Source Maintenance Fee

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 260 posts

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#11

Post by mytailorisrich »

Cheer2171 wrote: post #8
mytailorisrich wrote: post #3

Not a lawyer so confused about how requiring a fee to get the binary is in practice compatible with open source licenses, which grant the right to redistribute said binary. I.e. even if the project itself does not want to give me a copy of the binary, anyone who has obtained that binary can lawfully gice it to me. Basically, my understanding is that as long as the software is released under an open source license it…

> license it is not possible to require a payment for its use or to limit distribution Those two are not the same, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html You can also try to charge $10000 for a gold plated CD copy of the Linux kernel without having committed a line yourself.

Of course you can sell copies. My point is exactly this part of the article you've linked:

"With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access".

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#12

Post by [deleted] »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #3

Not a lawyer so confused about how requiring a fee to get the binary is in practice compatible with open source licenses, which grant the right to redistribute said binary. I.e. even if the project itself does not want to give me a copy of the binary, anyone who has obtained that binary can lawfully gice it to me. Basically, my understanding is that as long as the software is released under an open source license it…

[deleted]

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#13

Post by coldpie »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #3

Not a lawyer so confused about how requiring a fee to get the binary is in practice compatible with open source licenses, which grant the right to redistribute said binary. I.e. even if the project itself does not want to give me a copy of the binary, anyone who has obtained that binary can lawfully gice it to me. Basically, my understanding is that as long as the software is released under an open source license it…

You're correct, but I guess they're banking on their users preferring to get the binaries straight from the source instead of through an unaffiliated third party. There are also other benefits to paying, such as being able to file issues against the official repository. Seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me, to be honest.

The license even says you may redistribute the binary you acquire from them:

> User may redistribute the Binary Release received under this Agreement, provided such redistribution complies with the OSI License (e.g., including copyright and permission notices).

https://github.com/wixtoolset/wix/blob/main/OSMFEULA.txt

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#14

Post by dec0dedab0de »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #3

Not a lawyer so confused about how requiring a fee to get the binary is in practice compatible with open source licenses, which grant the right to redistribute said binary. I.e. even if the project itself does not want to give me a copy of the binary, anyone who has obtained that binary can lawfully gice it to me. Basically, my understanding is that as long as the software is released under an open source license it…

If it is actually under an open source license then you are correct. They can charge for the right to download it from their servers but they cant stop someone from then redistributing it. Anybody redistributing could also charge if they wanted to.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#15

Post by victorbjorklund »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #3

Not a lawyer so confused about how requiring a fee to get the binary is in practice compatible with open source licenses, which grant the right to redistribute said binary. I.e. even if the project itself does not want to give me a copy of the binary, anyone who has obtained that binary can lawfully gice it to me. Basically, my understanding is that as long as the software is released under an open source license it…

There are many different open source licenses, and what counts as "open source" can depend on your definition. In theory, you could write a license that makes the source code freely available but restricts binary distribution, or excludes certain groups or use cases from using the software (like not allowing AWS to resell it as a service). Some would argue that's no longer truly open source, but legally, you can add almost any condition to your license.

In this case, it sounds like they're charging a fee for their pre-compiled binaries and possibly using an end user agreement to restrict redistribution. But since the source is available, anyone could compile it themselves and share the binary, unless the license specifically forbids that.

Realistically, though, many people who want the software will just pay for the convenience of the official binary rather than go through the hassle of compiling it or finding someone else who did. So, while the situation is a bit unusual, it doesn't seem like a major issue in practice.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#16

Post by optymizer »

Honestly, open source software should come with a price. I think the "starving artist" approach is detrimental long-term.

Sure, there is great value in having a free (in both senses) operating system, but at the same time the year of Linux desktop is a running joke.

To be blunt, money motivates people to do the work they otherwise would not do. It's soul crushing to run the 400th manual test. It's not sexy to work on a lot of the bugs that affect real users, so, when there's no money in it, the work tends to focus in areas of passion and feature development.

Maybe if we all sent $1 to open source projects we use, there'd be enough funding to hire QA people and engineers to fix things like Ubuntu's suspend/resume on my Lenovo laptop, you know?

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#19

Post by dec0dedab0de »

Cheer2171 wrote: post #8
mytailorisrich wrote: post #3

Not a lawyer so confused about how requiring a fee to get the binary is in practice compatible with open source licenses, which grant the right to redistribute said binary. I.e. even if the project itself does not want to give me a copy of the binary, anyone who has obtained that binary can lawfully gice it to me. Basically, my understanding is that as long as the software is released under an open source license it…

> license it is not possible to require a payment for its use or to limit distribution Those two are not the same, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html You can also try to charge $10000 for a gold plated CD copy of the Linux kernel without having committed a line yourself.

You can charge for the source code too, just not separately.

But you can definitely have an opensource project that is not available free of charge from any official source. Your clients can redistribute for free or not, but you are not required to just let the whole world have your code directly from you.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#20

Post by rock_artist »

I've used WiX for a specific project in my work when I've needed MSI.

TBH, enforcing maintenance fee for anyone who makes revenue feels unfair.

There are other open-source libraries that has dual-license with some kind of GPL variant and a commercial license. but there's at least some threshold.

Imagine indie developer or someone who wants to try and create something but without much revenue (eg 1k / year). so 10% of your revenue goes to the installer of your product...

I'm all in sponsoring open-source and investing in software but part of being sustainable is making it accessible. so maybe that indie developer who used WiX for their indie project ended up going to 100k/year and now can contribute. But if originally it was capped, they might choose other solution that fits the "indie" tight budget better.

Post reply on HN