Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Maintenance Fee

github.com

71–80 of 260 posts

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#71

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…

Not sure why you were downvoted, but I agree with you.

Anyway, you may want to take a look at nsis, at least when I needed an installer for a windows application many years ago, it worked fine for me. It doesn't produce an .msi but on the other hands it's fast.

Another meanwhile somewhat out-of-date option is squirrel, but it offers a auto-updater, which is very useful.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#72
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Users and companies can force you to continue to work on your project. Otherwise they'll fork it, make it worse, blame you for bugs they introduced in the fork, say that the original project wasn't that good, etc. How is it bad ? How does it force you to do anything ? It doesn't even interfere with your thing, which will keep scratching the itch your built it to scratch. That is the whole beauty of free software: n…

It is good for you to feel that way, others increasingly view it as a narrative endorsed by big tech to get free labor and "AI" training material.

> "AI" training material

One of the things that I have been encountering, more and more, is the "GIGO" principle (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

Some of the code that I get from coding agents and chat LLMs, is laughably bad. It works, but only because the example has five different approaches to solving the issue, and only two of them work, etc.

I just spent the last two days, working around junk that I got, for implementing WebAuthn. I have it working now, and am grateful for the example, but I'd never ship the code I was given as an example.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#73
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAICT, the fee applies if you're using binary releases, or if you open issues, and are also generating revenue from the project. Apparently you can grab the sources and build the binaries yourself (as per the OSS license), never ask for support (by reporting issues), and still have to pay nothing, even in a commercial setting. It looks a bit similar to the RedHat model: they release open-source software (Linux kerne…

> companies would not mind paying a small amount to help support the OSS projects they depend on meanwhile I've been trying to find a way to give Hashicorp some money for over a decade of depending on their tools, but their products simply are too good to need the enterprise versions! At some point we need something like a "certified B corporation" for "certified ethical fair-trade Free Software using corporation" wh…

You can open https://www.hashicorp.com/en/pricing and contact their sales department!

Also, wasn't there an uproar when Terraform turned slightly less free? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37081306

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#74
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAICT, the fee applies if you're using binary releases, or if you open issues, and are also generating revenue from the project. Apparently you can grab the sources and build the binaries yourself (as per the OSS license), never ask for support (by reporting issues), and still have to pay nothing, even in a commercial setting. It looks a bit similar to the RedHat model: they release open-source software (Linux kerne…

> companies would not mind paying a small amount to help support the OSS projects they depend on meanwhile I've been trying to find a way to give Hashicorp some money for over a decade of depending on their tools, but their products simply are too good to need the enterprise versions! At some point we need something like a "certified B corporation" for "certified ethical fair-trade Free Software using corporation" wh…

I mean enterprise vault has some really important features that open source doesnt. That could be a good direction to throw money at.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#75

Not commenting on the substance but on the https://opensourcemaintenancefee.org/ homepage itself. It only works in dark mode and is unreadable in light mode. The repo doesn't allow opening issues. Maybe the author reads here... (long shot)

you have to pay the fee to submit issues, obviously ;)

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#76

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…

Start-ups and smaller companies that are extremely cash strapped are willing to take an opensource project, compile it themselves, turn it into deployment artifacts and manage that whole lifecycle. There is a threshold where paying someone to manage and certify the lifecycle of tools is more valuable than keeping it in house. This is pushing those enterprise customers that are just using and updating binary releases…

I agree with your point. In the name of promoting basic numeracy:

"""

Sign up for GitHub Sponsorship and create the tiers: Small organization ( 100 people): $60/mo

"""

You are beyond 'cash strapped' if $10/month for something as fundamental as this breaks the bank. The fully loaded cost of a single US software developer is already above $100/hour.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#77
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Users and companies can force you to continue to work on your project. Otherwise they'll fork it, make it worse, blame you for bugs they introduced in the fork, say that the original project wasn't that good, etc. How is it bad ? How does it force you to do anything ? It doesn't even interfere with your thing, which will keep scratching the itch your built it to scratch. That is the whole beauty of free software: n…

It is good for you to feel that way, others increasingly view it as a narrative endorsed by big tech to get free labor and "AI" training material.

If it solves your problem, why would you care about what other people do with it ? Free software isn't charity, just a way to find allies - usage by other people is a side effect which doesn't cost anything to the project and is entirely irrelevant apart as some input for the user-to-ally pipeline.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#78
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have mixed feelings about this. I’m not a Wix user so this is a general comment on the substance of this. 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…

AFAICT, the fee applies if you're using binary releases, or if you open issues, and are also generating revenue from the project. Apparently you can grab the sources and build the binaries yourself (as per the OSS license), never ask for support (by reporting issues), and still have to pay nothing, even in a commercial setting. It looks a bit similar to the RedHat model: they release open-source software (Linux kerne…

> or if you open issues

I feel like there should be an exception carved out to this policy, if the submitter of an issue is offering to create (or, as a corporation, dedicate their own engineers' time to creating) a PR to resolve the problem the issue describes.

As a maintainer of a few OSS projects myself, I see my fair share of "choosing beggars" (i.e. people who don't mentally model others' motivations, and so use github issues to essentially say "I got this for free, but it's not perfect for me, so can you please improve it in ways X/Y/Z to better suit my needs?" — without any consideration of whether their suggested improvement would ever benefit anyone else.)

But if an issue's submitter offers to create a PR, then this makes it very clear that they're not operating in this mindset; and in fact, they're being quite considerate! By describing a real problem, and then offering to create a solution to that problem, they:

1. make sure that we actually want to solve this problem (i.e. that we don't think of their problem as a WONTFIX / something that doesn't belong upstream)

2. give us the opportunity to take over solving the problem ourselves, if we think it's some kind of highly-critical and finicky work

3. give us the opportunity to participate in / constrain / steer the design of a solution, before it gets developed (rather than just having code dropped in our laps and having to fight it into an entirely different shape)

And it often doesn't even matter if the developer in question really has the skill and experience to develop the proposed solution entirely on their own. To me, a dev who creates a half-baked PR that we can then help shepherd over the line over the course of weeks/months of back-and-forth with them in the PR thread, is someone clearly in the process of developing that skill and experience, and potentially becoming an active contributor to the project — or maybe even a future maintainer. This sort of willingness to engage in a non-drive-by way is incredibly valuable.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's shocking to me that Microsoft aren't heavily involved with the project considering it's one of the fundamental frameworks for releasing software on Windows. I've had the displeasure of using Wix and it's an incredibly complicated and poorly documented platform that had us reaching for paid competitors in order to get our installer shipped. I realized shortly after that it's not really Wix's fault. Windows is squ…

I've been out of the windows world for about 10 years or so, but before that I was the one tasked at my company with streamlining our installers from a CI/CD perspective. I do agree that WiX is complicated and you really have to dig through the docs and do a lot of trial and error, but at the time I couldn't find any alternatives that allowed for the automation that I could achieve with WiX.

That said it was still somewhat ugly: msbuild the application, potentially copy in some dll's that weren't included in the output, use WiX's "heat" tool to generate installer files from the build output, use a xslt to transform that output to match how we installed shared libraries and such, build the installer with generated files, run automated ui tests and filesystem validations.

At the time installshield, advanced installer, and a few other tools I tried did not have the same flexibility to generate installers and automatically pick up file changes like WiX (without opening up a UI).

I'm so glad I haven't had to think about the nightmare that is MSI in over a decade.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#80
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have mixed feelings about this. I’m not a Wix user so this is a general comment on the substance of this. 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…

AFAICT, the fee applies if you're using binary releases, or if you open issues, and are also generating revenue from the project. Apparently you can grab the sources and build the binaries yourself (as per the OSS license), never ask for support (by reporting issues), and still have to pay nothing, even in a commercial setting. It looks a bit similar to the RedHat model: they release open-source software (Linux kerne…

Red Hat does not charge you to open issues on open source projects and never will. Their business model does not hinge on deriving value from core open source principles.
Post reply on HN