Open-source cannot live on donations alone
binpress.com
binpress.com
I've had enough bad experiences with people who wanted the open source label while not being open source that I don't give the benefit of the doubt any more. And I'm not interested enough to go to your site to investigate for myself.
Just because I can look at the source of something does not mean it's open source. If it doesn't have an open source license it's just proprietary code that ships in source form.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_open-source_applicat...
I didn't say that source code has no value, but providing source is not the same as an open source license, which has significantly more value.
On the other hand, almost all of our licenses include an SLA - which no free open-source license does. In fact, one of the main reasons often cited by people releasing code with FOSS licenses is that they don't have to support it (doesn't mean they won't, they just don't have to). We think the guarantee of support is worth a lot in certain sectors (such as SMBs and enterprise).
I am from India, and it is really difficult to raise even a small amount of money here. The deal I was offered by a Seed Investment firm was - give us 5% stake (for 0 investment) and we will prepare you for seed funding. This is how bad it is here: I have working compilers and a client.
What I was looking for from seed funding was about Rs 50,000 a month which is about USD 1000 a month, so that I can work full time on my project and move it forward.
Gimp is the perfect example in my oppinion, because it's such a great project without decent funding. Imagine what the could achieve with better funding.