Comment by mwcampbell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mwcampbell | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Congrats on the release. For some reason when I heard of Astro, I thought it was a dynamic server-side rendering framework, not a static site builder. But I'm sure someone else will take on SSR with islands if they haven't already.

Also:

> Astro is and always will be free. It is an open source project released under the MIT license.

> We care deeply about building a more sustainable future for open source software. At the same time, we need to support Astro's development long-term. This requires money (donations alone aren't enough.)

Why make it harder for yourselves by choosing such a permissive license? Developers shouldn't be ashamed to not just ask for, but demand, compensation, for the software itself, by choosing a more restrictive license. Even if that means you can't call it free software or open source, e.g. a source-available license that requires payment for commercial use. By now we should be ready to accept that free software with no strings attached just isn't sustainable except for projects with big corporate backers.

Elder.js supports Islands with SSR. It is also MIT. I released it as an SEO experiment as much as anything else.

I’m enjoying the dev process and am committed to facilitating (myself or paying another) it’s maintenance for several years. I can do that because my prior successes can subsidize the cost.

If I had to do it again, I’d probably pick another license. As a first time maintainer of a project that is hitting the pit of success it is amazing the number of for profit companies taking the framework and demanding changes to suit their narrow business cases.

I literally LOL at some of the emails. I very much think the state of OSS isn’t sustainable. It has been an interesting rodeo.

> I very much think the state of OSS isn’t sustainable.

I'm perplexed by this. You wrote that Elder.js was an experiment. I sense that the stress you are feeling now is a result of trying to make it work for everybody else. But it doesn't have to work for anybody else.

OSS that is a slave to people who don't contribute may very well be unsustainable. OSS for the fun and use of it is perfectly sustainable. If Elder.js does what you need, that's great! If you're hoping it makes you the next DR Hipp or John Resig, maybe think about whether you really want that. If you do want that, that's fine, too. It just comes with a lot of demands.

Just an aside, this is why I enjoy playing with open-source music things and Arduino / ESP32 ecosystem stuff more than web tech in my free time. There are some commercial uses, but still a ton of hobbyists doing it for the love of the process and just for fun / because we can. A whole lot of cool stuff exists in these spaces. Definitely worth a look.

>>.. Demanding changes...

Your words or theirs? . I would have thought big companies looking for changes (new features?) is the perfect monetizing opportunity.

I mean, can't you just say "sure, I can add that for $2000." if it's not worth a couple grand to them, then it's not that important or worth your time.

One way to sustain the open source model is a pay-for-development approach.

Have you tried to convert those requests into one-off sponsorships to develop the feature they need? Sounds like a win-win. From my experience with procurement you just need a high enough number to make it worth their time.

This is exactly why there are so many companies who still want to use open-source (or source available) so end users (companies) can modify but are moving toward non "open source" licenses.

2 decades back people built things for fun and learning. We wanted to have the freedoms and pass it on. Now anything that has any commercial value gets most attention from developers whose day job does not encourage tinkering. They use your code, ask for more and pay nothing.

This is not sustainable.

Plot twist: if it’s worth enough to them, make a living for yourself selling consulting services :)

> By now we should be ready to accept that free software with no strings attached just isn't sustainable except for projects with big corporate backers.

That very much depends on who the authors of the software are and what their goals/motivations are. This is far too much of a blanket statement.

I agree that no one should be ashamed to sell software that they write. Also, those authors can and should be the ones to determine under what license the software is released (unless, of course, they are being paid by someone else to write it -- that's a different set of circumstances). But there are plenty of very useful open source projects that have been around for a very long time with no big corporate backers.

My little app to monitor and assess the growth and health of trees I just planted in my backyard is a hobby app. It's just for fun. I did it for me.

If you want to use it for your hobby, go ahead.

When the extension office down the road wanted to use it for their cactus farm, that was fine by me. I added some stuff specific to cactii that they wanted. They added some more stuff. No big deal. It works for them, I guess.

When the U.S. Forest Service expressed interest, I was surprised, but, hey, whatever. They added some features, but needed some small architectural changes for those changes to fit in. They were reasonable and easy, so it was ok. I have no idea where they use it or what they use it for, really. But if it works for them, great.

This latest contact out of Brazil, though, is different. They want me to fly down there for two months and completely re-work the app to monitor the entire Amazon forest. Thousands of species and tens of thousands of monitoring stations in a giant mesh network across much of a continent.

Should I ask them for a donation?

OSS can be a hobby. It can be a passion consuming a lot of time and energy. And it can be a job. If it is a job, you get paid.

Not sure what’s the point you are trying to make here. If you’re being hired (and flown) to extend the software it’s a consulting gig and not a “asking for a donation” situation, and you should quote accordingly. This is one of the traditional ways authors can benefit from OSS with permissive licenses.

Is the Amazon forest a contract job? Would love to read more detail about that arrangement if you can make it work.

Sounds big enough you could also get an ongoing retainer for maintenance and support of their set up after the initial work.

Ummm. I thought I might have to put a disclaimer in there. But I figured it was over the top enough to be clear. I was wrong.

There is no app. No cactus farm. No Forest Service. No Amazon.

Edit: Ok, fine! The U.S. Forest Service does exist. So does the Amazon. But the story is fiction.

Since you're only hearing from people who didn't pick up on it, I'm just going to say that I got your point and thought the Amazon example was plenty extreme enough to realize it was made up.

Cheers.

I feel like you have a point to make but I'm missing it completely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com