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

91–100 of 260 posts

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#91

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

>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.

Surprised downloading releases is in there, I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure this goes against it's own license on the source code, specifically:

>each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.

At the very least it's confusing, and if anything, comically easy to bypass and literally forces someone to automate a github mirror that builds new releases. Your essentially enforcing the existence of a fork. They even provide the github actions necessary to do so in their repo already...

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#92

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

TrueDuality wrote: post #42
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…

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…

They actually provide the github action they use to build the releases in their repo already, so you could likely get this done in under 5 minutes.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#93

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

jsmith99 wrote: post #68
calibas wrote: post #55

I thought the license was still owned by Microsoft? https://github.com/wixtoolset/wix?tab=License-1-ov-file#read... Also, the exact wording is: "a EULA on binary releases (including those published to GitHub and NuGet.org) requires payment of the Maintenance Fee" I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't that mean that I can compile the code myself to circumvent the Maintenance Fee, and give the binaries away for free?

Yes, the repo readme says the code is open source but the fee is required for using the repo's issues and releases features.

I'd be surprised if the github EULA allows you to just attach rules to who can click the releases button.

For issues and discussion, sure that's essentially moderation. But surely you can't make a EULA that says you can't click on a github provided feature unless you agree to some arbitrary third party's rules.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#94

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

qwery wrote: post #46
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…

For one thing, I don't think they think they have a silver bullet here. I think they want some financial support and if some users of the project pay the fee that will be some success. 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 w…

I really don't think they can limit who can download their releases with their license.

>If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

>each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.

I'm not sure how their rules comply with their own license, and I truly don't think they do. They're granting additional restrictions to a binary they're distributing (if you download this give us money). They're just hoping to scare some contributors into handing over some cash.

Maybe some licenses do allow for this, but the one they chose for Wix almost certainly does not.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#95

Post by zvr »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #92
TrueDuality wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They actually provide the github action they use to build the releases in their repo already, so you could likely get this done in under 5 minutes.

And that's what a number of organizations have set up since March.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#96

Post by GnarfGnarf »

The WiX installer is a byzantine incomprehensible mess. Its only appeal was that it was free. If I have to pay, I'd rather have a commercial product that is supported and easier to use.

Rob Mensching was supposed to monetize WiX by offering $5,000/yr enterprise consulting & support services. I guess that's not enough.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#97

Post by johannes1234321 »

trjordan wrote: post #31

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…

It is a tough thing. I want to focus on the negatives from two perspectives, as you wrote some positive:

* This can make it harder to recruit further contributors as there is a two-clays system of contributors. Paid and unpaid. "Why should I fix a bug for free, while others earn the money?" * Accepting money make sit a business transaction, if I accept somebody's money they have demands towards me. Then I got to work on it.

But of course the volunteer free model has sustainability issues ...

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#98

Post by thayne »

derefr wrote: post #78
nine_k wrote: 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…

> 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…

It's complicated. Reviewing a PR takes time and effort, and the maintainer may not want to do that for a feature that mainly benefits a company that isn't paying the maintenance fee.

OTOH, as a maintainer, if a company finds a bug that would impact a lot of users, I would want them to report it, regardless of their payment status.

But saying something like "Issues from paying customers/donors have higher priority" is kind of vague, and doesn't provide any concrete value to the payer. So I'm not really sure what a good balance would be.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#99

Post by robmensching »

trjordan wrote: post #31

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…

You really nailed the essence of the idea/solution.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#100

Post by LtWorf »

hbn wrote: post #57
calibas wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem terribly innovative to me, they've gone from giving away a product to selling a product. In other words, they're operating like a normal business.

Well, it's a "free if you're not generating revenue" model which is similar to JetBrains' recent "free for non-commercial use" releases of their IDEs, and I believe Docker does something like that too. And famously WinRar which will nag you to upgrade every time you open it but doesn't actually force you to buy it, but expect enterprises will if they don't want to risk lawsuits.

But why call it open source if it's no longer open source?
Post reply on HN