There has been a lot of talk about companies and individuals adopting licenses that aren’t OSI opensource to protect themselves from mega-corp leechers. Developers have also been condemned who put donation notices in the command-line or during package installation. Projects with opensource cores and paid extensions have also been targets of vitriol.

So, let’s say we wanted to make it possible for the majority of developers to work on software that strictly follows the definition of opensource, which models would be acceptable to make enough money to work on those projects full-time?

  • corsicanguppy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    As mentioned in books published TWENTY YEARS AGO, many companies working in Open-Source make their money in value-added services and support.

    My side gig has been doing that for the last 22 years.

    And, that’s the number-one answer from chatGPT.

    It’s also totally okay to not blithely jam the words together but to pretend hyphens are a thing.

    • onlinepersona@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      As mentioned in books published TWENTY YEARS AGO, many companies working in Open-Source make their money in value-added services and support.

      And the world hasn’t changed in 20 years?

      It’s also totally okay to not blithely jam the words together but to pretend hyphens are a thing.

      What?

      Anti Commercial-AI license