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

21–30 of 260 posts

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#21

Post by natemcintosh »

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…

I watched the video on the open source maintenance fee page (https://opensourcemaintenancefee.org/) and it explains that the fee is for 1) people/orgs who make revenue from the open source code AND 2) want to interact with the GitHub project (e.g. open issues). You can however 1) make revenue from the open source code, but not interact with the GitHub project without paying the fee.

For instance, if I'm an organization that wants to use this open source project for free, I can download and build the code, but not download a GitHub generated release binary.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#22

Post by coldpie »

rock_artist wrote: post #20

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…

> 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...

You can always download the source and build the software yourself, or acquire the binary from another person willing/able to build it. The fee only applies to binary distribution from the project itself, and support from the project.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#23

Post by pixxel »

optymizer wrote: post #16

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…

[dead]

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#24

Post by nathas »

rock_artist wrote: post #20

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…

> Small organization (If you went to 100k/year and still a solo dev, that's just 0.12% of your ARR. The percentages here are meaningless; $10/month should be doable for anyone that wants to run a business, even someone solo.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#25

Post by thinkingtoilet »

rock_artist wrote: post #20

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…

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

I have terrific news! You can start your own open source project that people use to make money and don't contribute back to.

>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 have terrific news! That indie developer can create their own installer or start their own open source project that others can make money off of and not contribute back to.

>I'm all in sponsoring open-source and investing in software but part of being sustainable is making it accessible.

I have some bad news here. 99% of people aren't all in on this. We see time and time again that even mission critical open source projects struggle to get people to fund it. The projects that do tend to survive are the ones that build businesses around the project. It's very rare to have an open source project be well funded solely for existing with no business around it. Of course there are exceptions, but that model has failed near completely. That's the reality.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#26

Post by opticfluorine »

I came across this a few months ago when I was evaluating open source installer options for my own open source project. I have no issue with charging for binaries while the source is available under an OSI license, but this from the README rubbed me the wrong way:

"To ensure the long-term sustainability of this project, use of the WiX Toolset requires an Open Source Maintenance Fee. While the source code is freely available under the terms of the LICENSE, all other aspects of the project--including opening or commenting on issues, participating in discussions and downloading releases--require adherence to the Maintenance Fee.

In short, if you use this project to generate revenue, the Open Source Maintenance Fee is required."

I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume this is just a difficult concept to succinctly explain in a short paragraph. But that summary - that revenue-generating use requires payment - feels misleading to me. Under their license, nothing stops me from creating my own build from source and using it per the terms of the MS-RL license, including for commercial purposes. So to me it feels like a scare tactic to coerce commercial users into becoming sponsors for the project.

I certainly understand the challenges faced by open source maintainers today, but the specific approach taken here just doesn't feel ethical to me. I ended up passing on WiX for that reason even though I'm not a commercial user.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#27

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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…

Probably dependent on jurisdiction - whilst practically, having the binary means you can share it, that's not legal without license to do that (in UK) as even though it's open source the copyright still exists on the binary (and because sharing is copying).

You might be free to compile your own from shared source code, however.

Depends also on the license used ofc.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#28

Post by 90s_dev »

thinkmassive wrote: post #10
yoavm wrote: post #2

This has nothing to do with Wix, the platform for building websites. It's about "WiX Toolset" - https://wixtoolset.org/

> The most powerful set of tools available to create your Windows installation experience. Open Source since 2004!

Funny enough, I came across WiX the other day when I was looking into windows installers like msix, nsis, etc. Eventually settled on self-contained exe (and it's only 1.4 mb, woo!) but seeing the name wix took me back, I vaguely remembered it from around 2005 or so when I was first trying to make "real" windows programs (as opposed to visual basic ones). Took 20 years, but I finally did it, and written entirely in C, too! Anyway yeah, different wix than the popular one. Tom, you may want to rename this post.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#29

Post by maxerickson »

opticfluorine wrote: post #26

I came across this a few months ago when I was evaluating open source installer options for my own open source project. I have no issue with charging for binaries while the source is available under an OSI license, but this from the README rubbed me the wrong way: "To ensure the long-term sustainability of this project, use of the WiX Toolset requires an Open Source Maintenance Fee. While the source code is freely av…

Isn't it just a clear statement that they aren't going to give commercial users support for free?

I know you are saying it isn't clear, but your quote literally includes the statement "While the source code is freely available under the terms of the LICENSE".

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#30

Post by opticfluorine »

maxerickson wrote: post #29
opticfluorine wrote: post #26

I came across this a few months ago when I was evaluating open source installer options for my own open source project. I have no issue with charging for binaries while the source is available under an OSI license, but this from the README rubbed me the wrong way: "To ensure the long-term sustainability of this project, use of the WiX Toolset requires an Open Source Maintenance Fee. While the source code is freely av…

Isn't it just a clear statement that they aren't going to give commercial users support for free? I know you are saying it isn't clear, but your quote literally includes the statement "While the source code is freely available under the terms of the LICENSE".

I personally think this last sentence from my quote makes it unclear:

"In short, if you use this project to generate revenue, the Open Source Maintenance Fee is required."

Perhaps I'm being too semantic, but I don't feel that is an accurate representation of the license terms involved here.

Post reply on HN