Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   jacobian (jacob@social.jacobian.org)'s status on Saturday, 17-Feb-2024 08:26:36 JST jacobian

   “We believe that open source should be sustainable and open source maintainers should get paid!”

   Maintainer: *introduces commercial features*
   “Not like that”

   Maintainer: *works for a large tech co*
   “Not like that”

   Maintainer: *takes investment*
   “Not like that”

   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Saturday, 17-Feb-2024 08:26:25 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @jacob@social.jacobian.org Maintainer: introduces commercial featuresNothing wrong with that as long as the commercial features do not take away the user's freedom by turning these so called features more into restrictions.
     Maintainer: works for a large tech coUsually not good. At most large tech companies you're only contributing to things that make the world a worse place, but there are some exceptions.
     Maintainer: takes investmentThat's usually not a bad thing, especially if it is investment from governments or well trusted NGOs. Investments are really only a bad thing if the investors want something that ruins things for everyone in return.

     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 19-Feb-2024 19:58:44 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @jacob >Note the deliberate use of lower case. I’m not referring to Open Source™ as defined by OSI, nor to Free Software™ as defined by the FSF1. I mean these terms in the broadest, most inclusive sense: “software with source code that I can read and modify and release variants of, perhaps under some conditions
     I suggest against trying to redefine "open source" for the 74th time.
     
     The term you seem to want is; "source-available".