You are using Ubuntu, I see from your profile.
How much have you paid them?
This is how the stories goes: we haven't figured out how to make good work worthwhile.
Perhaps we can learn something from our vast experience in profitably peddling shit?
This is how the stories goes: we haven't figured out how to make good work worthwhile.
Perhaps we can learn something from our vast experience in profitably peddling shit?
But that'll never change unless all of a sudden we say "Ok, on the count of 3, everybody stop giving away their hard-earned expertise for free. 1... 2... 3..." We're like musicians nowadays. We love it, so we do it without insisting on compensation.
A few months ago, I Show HN'd an open source project, but reserved the copyright to the code. The commenters immediately took note of this and I felt compelled to switch it to an MIT license. (It was open source for security reasons, if you're wondering.) I'm glad I did, but the point remains: there was pressure to conform.
ORLY? Have you read much source for BitLocker or FileVault, recently? WhatsApp? Skype? And those are just the most popular ones off the top of my head...
Er, the first to keep their source closed and try to charge for it happened a long time ago, and there are huge numbers of developers at firms from one-man shops to massive megacorps still doing it today.
The idea that closed-source for-profit development is a novel idea that violates norms in the software development community and that everyone is afraid to try is cute, but, you know, completely contrary to the actual facts of both the current state and history of software development.
Some source is better to be open for all stakeholders, others... it's more or less irrelevant, unless you believe the entire world is out to get you.
But there are library authors who publish BSD (governnent funding) who can't partner with GPL. It's unfortunate.
Seems like there's another option -- open source your project and also charge for a license to use it. By open sourcing people will trust it more which will cause its value to go up. And then more people would be willing to pay for it.
If you open source your project, unless you're using an unusual definition of open source, you've provided a free-of-charge, sublicensable license to use, modify, and distribute it. (Or, at least, a license that the licensee is free to sublicense without charging the sublicensee or paying an additional fee to you, so even if you are charging for the direct licenses, the more you sell the greater the probability that it will be available at no charge.)
You could open source it and charge a fee for professional support, however, which is a fairly common model.
I say this because I know that when I am looking for libraries to use at work in commercial software, I have to look for BSD-style code and now actively steer clear from GPL and LGPL code (static builds for me please).
It isn't to be malicious but it's mainly because I would like to continue living. Giving away things I have spent years working on doesn't pay my mortgage or put food on the table.
I mean, I feel the burn when I give money to Debian, Arch, KDE, etc - but I do it because I know I have to, because the software is so important to me. The $500 or so I donate each year is a lot of money to me, and I'm in the US - I cannot imagine how much donating to these projects would hurt the international users who make significantly less than the 15-25k or so I make annually.
I don't know how KDE managed it, but Blue Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Systems) is a Germany company founded by one Clemens Tönnies, Jr. Don't know anything about the guy, but he is somehow paying 10+ KDE devs without a business model. I've donated a lot to Kubuntu, but I cannot imagine in a million years they get enough donor money to fund all the devs they employ.
But those kinds of philanthropies, the way Mark Shuttleworth keeps Canonical afloat, seems to me to be the only practical way to keep free software afloat. You cannot ask a million destitute people to donate money they need to eat or sleep comfortably, but we as a community don't have the charisma or ears to get fat cat donors to foot the bills. Probably because software freedom does not matter as much when you are wealthy - you can just pay to get the software you want made anyway, and you might even be able to bribe companies to give you the source if you care enough.
And I recognize a huge portion of the donor pool for most free software projects isn't either end of this spectrum, but people like me making something above the poverty line and below extravagance that donate what they can where they can, but that is consistently shown to not be enough. And I imagine it is more because it takes millions of average joes paying dollars to match what one millionaire can do in an instant.
It's easier for businesses to write off these type donations (and make them for significant amounts) than for private individuals to do so.
Far simpler not to even bother at all.
If your effort is half as good, you still get half million people to donate $1.
On the company case, one million is not pocket change, so this will be a serious decision that has to be approved by several independent branches within the organization, each with veto power. Screw one of those and it's a deal breaker.
Furthermore, I'd say that this decision is one that is particularly difficult to frame for the company. While corporations do understand direct costs very very well, they are practically hardwired to ignore/exploit the gift economy. So the discussion will be stirred towards what indirect benefits will the company receive from donating to a worthy cause (public relations, tax exceptions, etc) and away from the consequences of letting a (unacknowledged) strategic partner to go under.
Not to say that a corporation cannot assume stewardship of a distressed project, but it almost always requires executive fiat to get over the bureaucracy.