I like this idea in principle, but I think this approach won't be workable for a lot of people who use open source software.
From the FAQ: "If you find yourself returning to check on issues, or review answers to questions others ask, or download updates to the source code, you are still using the project and need to pay the Maintenance Fee."
If I can't pull updates to the open source code then it's not open source.
That's a good point. The intent was to suggest that if a consumer keeps returning to the project, maybe they should be paying for its maintenance. However, the source code needs to remain freely available, so that part probably goes too far. I will fix it.
This site is recommending projects to switch to a "free for non-commercial use" model (commercial users being required to pay to use the software), which is not compatible with free software as defined by the Free Software Foundation, and is likely not open source according to OSI.
With all due respect, this is incorrect on both accounts. From the FSF directly:
> Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price.
> ...
> You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
And the OSI applies to the "Open Source Software", aka the source code. The OSI does not apply to the "Open Source Project", aka the issue tracker, discussion forums, downloadable binaries (although the source code to recreate those binaries often needs to be available), etc.
In the end, the Software (the source code) must be free. But the time and effort of the maintainers keeping the Project running is not free. So, those consumers that make money are required to pay to keep the Project running. Or, they can choose not pay the Fee, not use the Project, and only use the Software.
WantonQuantum|1 year ago
From the FAQ: "If you find yourself returning to check on issues, or review answers to questions others ask, or download updates to the source code, you are still using the project and need to pay the Maintenance Fee."
If I can't pull updates to the open source code then it's not open source.
robmensching|1 year ago
kazinator|1 year ago
robmensching|1 year ago
> Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price.
> ...
> You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
And the OSI applies to the "Open Source Software", aka the source code. The OSI does not apply to the "Open Source Project", aka the issue tracker, discussion forums, downloadable binaries (although the source code to recreate those binaries often needs to be available), etc.
In the end, the Software (the source code) must be free. But the time and effort of the maintainers keeping the Project running is not free. So, those consumers that make money are required to pay to keep the Project running. Or, they can choose not pay the Fee, not use the Project, and only use the Software.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]