It’s close to impossible. Look at heartbleed or the xz disaster. Two fundamental pieces of software used on billions of devices, neither of them made enough money for a single full-time dev.
And you are suggesting that one can make enough money from a FOSS REST client?
Look at breadsmasher’s original comment. There’s not a word in there about “betraying FOSS ideals”, nor does it contain a complaint about “closing the source”.
No, the whole comment is “Fuck Thunder REST because they want me to pay for features”. Breadsmasher is a freeloader. He would never donate anything. He uses FOSS, not because he wants freedom as in free speech, nor does he use it because he wants to review or modify the source. He uses FOSS for the “free as in free beer” aspect.
And when someone says “Now please contribute to a project you’ve been using for free”, he gets entitled and throws a fit like a two-year-old.
If you know where I could read about the monetary issues of xz and heartbeat I would appreciate such links.
You could be right about their ill motives for what they said but we do not know if they can even afford to pay or know enough to contribute. You could say my motives for software freedom are selfishly motivated, and I’ve only donated an OS. Given the numerous libre projects in our OS it’s difficult for anyone to do them all?
It makes sense that it’s more difficult to earn money from software when you attach a software freedom license - you’re actively choosing to not take advantage of your users. Like choosing not to just dump mercury in the river when it’s legal.
I enjoy writing code so not having the bad incentives from trying to monetize it seems a blessing - I don’t feel compelled to deny user software freedom for profit. I think focus may be better placed on promoting a univeral basic income - where everyone’s income doesn’t start at 0. That would help devs choose to keep their projects open.
Looks like you have never tried to monetize FOSS.
It’s close to impossible. Look at heartbleed or the xz disaster. Two fundamental pieces of software used on billions of devices, neither of them made enough money for a single full-time dev.
And you are suggesting that one can make enough money from a FOSS REST client?
Look at breadsmasher’s original comment. There’s not a word in there about “betraying FOSS ideals”, nor does it contain a complaint about “closing the source”.
No, the whole comment is “Fuck Thunder REST because they want me to pay for features”. Breadsmasher is a freeloader. He would never donate anything. He uses FOSS, not because he wants freedom as in free speech, nor does he use it because he wants to review or modify the source. He uses FOSS for the “free as in free beer” aspect.
And when someone says “Now please contribute to a project you’ve been using for free”, he gets entitled and throws a fit like a two-year-old.
If you know where I could read about the monetary issues of xz and heartbeat I would appreciate such links.
You could be right about their ill motives for what they said but we do not know if they can even afford to pay or know enough to contribute. You could say my motives for software freedom are selfishly motivated, and I’ve only donated an OS. Given the numerous libre projects in our OS it’s difficult for anyone to do them all?
It makes sense that it’s more difficult to earn money from software when you attach a software freedom license - you’re actively choosing to not take advantage of your users. Like choosing not to just dump mercury in the river when it’s legal.
I enjoy writing code so not having the bad incentives from trying to monetize it seems a blessing - I don’t feel compelled to deny user software freedom for profit. I think focus may be better placed on promoting a univeral basic income - where everyone’s income doesn’t start at 0. That would help devs choose to keep their projects open.