The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

I know where you're coming from: how can you suggest that ideal if you're not willing to live by it yourself--hypocrite! discard the rest of what this person says. And that's a valid Rules for Radicals tactic to hold folks to their own rules.

However, where I think you misunderstand in this case, is I am arguing for a principle, I don't have a need of a licensed ImageMagick Windows binary in this case. My comments make it clear that I'm discussing the wider issue of exploitation in OSS.

This issue itself will not be solved by me chartiably bailing out a struggling project based on a general principle. In fact, such charitable expectations go against the solutions I propose.

Instead, the solution I advocate for in my comments here is: bring easy transactions to open-source.

But if we are being overly glib and misrepresentative, then permit me my own inaccurate and irrelevant misrepresentation of you as hypocrite, too, please--for fairness of course: why don't YOU act entitled and demand free features that you "really need" but you never intend to pay for, then a throw a tantrum when they are declined?

You see how that tac doesn't really work? I'm sure you're not actually like that. Just as you should be sure I'm not in fact like you wish to merely pretend. Generously, at least you should assume I'm not! :)

Anyway, aside from such lightweight guerilla shots, do you have anything substantial to contribute to this discussion? I feel you do and eagerly await it, if you channel your passion into a sharp and perceptive comment! :)

--

So let's start over with some analysis of whether they can afford it or not:

> "Surely they can afford it but wish to spend on other things."

Your statement implies they can't actually afford it, since they opt to allocate funds elsewhere. The opportunity cost appears too high for them.

> "But a certificate there would cost $629 (tax excluded) for a single year. If your organization requires a signed installer then please consider sponsoring us with a code signing certificate."

The GitHub announcement use of "but" and the immediate call for sponsorship suggest that the $629 price is, in fact, a financial hurdle for them. Suggesting, contrary to your claim, that they cannot, in fact, afford it.

For utility style apps, Microsoft's app store is a joke.

First thing I have to note is that this really makes me want to offer anything as a web app. The browser offers a much better experience in so many ways and security is a well thought out integrated experience unlike these 25 year old operating systems bolting security on as an after thought. Clearly no one at Apple cares about this but that would be funny if this was the crack in the dam that broke down their hardware software monopoly.

Second thing is why can't a third party offer this as a service? I'm not limited in the number of apps I can sign technically, right? Why would people using my app care that the certificate says it is signed by me instead of (trusted by the os) ABC, corp that (Microsoft|Apple) says in their overlaid dialog they trust. They could revoke something in the chain but it's technically possible right? Is this explicitly prohibited in some EULA I accepted in a brain fog?

Nothing about OSS is free. "Free" is a lie. Pernicious, in that it was passed off under the guise of some ideal, yet it undermines the long term sustainability of the field by supporting a sense of entitlement.