41–50 of 260 posts
It seems like it would be much less complicated to write this/enforce this if they just made you pay a subscription fee for access binaries and the issue tracker. Instead, they've generated an enforcement nightmare by solely relying on an EULA.
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…
This is pushing those enterprise customers that are just using and updating binary releases because they don't want to take on the compliance risks of first-party support to pay for official versions.
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!
This has nothing to do with Wix, the platform for building websites. It's about "WiX Toolset" - https://wixtoolset.org/
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…
In particular, governments traditionally already allocate resources for the common benefit (their main function really), in public research and public science, public infrastructure, etc.. I think this is just another very significant extension of that.
Also companies benefit greatly from OS/(and OSHW in the future?), and frequently maintain private tools at significant costs. Open source can be seen as a coordination mechanism where everybody can (or rather, should) cooperate to lower costs and benefit everyone (basically, their whole industry or rather society gets more efficient) :)
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…
To the specifics, it's not a software license fee -- they aren't selling access to the software. It's a "maintenance fee", to fund the project. So the license of the code isn't a problem, you can (still) choose to license that under whatever terms are available.
From their FAQ[0]:
> Q: What if I don’t want to pay the Maintenance Fee?
> That’s fine. You can download the project’s source code and follow the Open Source license for the software.
> Do not download releases. Do not reference packages via a package manager. Do not use anything other than the source code released under the Open Source license.
> Also, if you choose to not pay the Maintenance Fee, but find yourself returning to check on the status of issues or review answers to questions others ask, you are still using the project and should pay the Maintenance Fee.
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…
This has nothing to do with Wix, the platform for building websites. It's about "WiX Toolset" - https://wixtoolset.org/
Ahh, thank you! I assumed it was Wix. They produce a ton of really high quality React Native libraries.
I love the innovation. The basic idea here appears to be: - Nobody wants this to be closed source. The code is freely available, and you may do with it as you want. The marginal cost to distribute the code is 0, after all. - The maintainers, as people, don't want to do charity work for companies. Their time is limited, and if they're going to support revenue-generating activities, they want a cut of the revenue. So e…
As an open source project no one is forcing you to maintain it. Every fix you put in is something that you do of your own volition. No company can force you to accept a PR or work on it. I think FOSS developers often get stressed about this but unless you personally have financial motivations around what you’ve written you can tell people to fuck off. Yeah they can complain, but you have zero obligation to fix.
The sponsorship seems to introduce a business model around what is FOSS, then it’s not FOSS anymore. The entire purpose of FOSS is anybody can copy and repurpose what you’ve built. They can fork it, take it in a different direction and create a business off of it. Depending on the license you’ve explicitly agreed to that.
This sentiment is going to be unpopular but I think the outrage is unwarranted.
I love the innovation. The basic idea here appears to be: - Nobody wants this to be closed source. The code is freely available, and you may do with it as you want. The marginal cost to distribute the code is 0, after all. - The maintainers, as people, don't want to do charity work for companies. Their time is limited, and if they're going to support revenue-generating activities, they want a cut of the revenue. So e…
In other words, they're operating like a normal business.