Contribute instead of self host

Off Topic
1

Rant Warning

So, I would like to take this chance to talk my heart out. I’m a developer and I intend to make open source and privacy respecting apps in near future but when I see people trying to fork products or selfhost something to get pro features for free. That’s where the real problem begins and the product you love becomes abadonware.

Now, yes open source and it’s license literally means that you’re free to take code and modify it or use it freely even distribute it for commercial purpose if the license allows it (or not, whose gonna enforce it?). That’s not a problem at all.

So what’s the problem?

Problem is that people consider free as no cost and if the product provides a pro feature, they start forking it or looking for other options to get pro features for free since the source code is available.

Again this is fully in your rights to do this, but if you’re capable of paying for a product and still you’re indulging in this behaviour, then I would like you to rethink about the morality of this act!

If you are capable then simple pay for the pro features as the products you pay and contribute will flourish with your contributions but since most people have the mindset in opposite, apps and services ends up as an abandonware.

Then people say: oh it’s open source, someone will take over the development.

Maybe! In most cases, if product isn’t that popular, then no one is going to develop the app further, but even if someone did take the development in their hands, then would they follow the real vision the real owner had the same vision that you fell in love with when you first saw that app or service, do you think that this new creator will value and follow that same vision?

Maybe, but if everyone who is capable can contribute to such products, then these products will have very less chance of becoming abandoned and we could have much better services than mainstream.

Now Some people move towards self hosting to get all features.

If you already have server and know how to self host, then go ahead and self host the service.

But if you’re self hosting just for sake of avoiding the cost, you’re better off paying for the plan.

For self hosting you would need:

  1. A domain name
  2. A hosting
  3. Manage updates
  4. Manage security
  5. Manage downtime
  6. Self Support (mostly you might not get support for self hosting).

So, if you have money then simple just pay for plan, rather than going through all the hassle of doing all the above steps. The real developers can handle that for you.

So, as a request from all the dev community to everyone:

Please pay for that plan if you’re capable rather than selfhosting or freeloading.

7 Likes
2

Pushback on this. If you release source code with no warranty, it’s not free loading.

If someone doesn’t want their code forked, don’t release the source code. Also consider a FUTO license in these cases if the concern is purely monetary.

Being FOSS doesn’t always mean it’s a good business model. Developers should think long and hard with their product manager hat before relying on money for a FOSS project.

3

IMO if you rely onsomebody’s generosity and not giving back in anyway, you are freeloading.

I don’t think it is solely a financial issue, and contribute doesnt necessarily mean monetary, one could contribute actual codes,or promote the service / software, could even mean showing appreciation. Not everyone like dealing with accounting / taxation / customer expectation issues, but I do agree monetary contribution is important as it supports various costs.

Unless the devs building a freemium service, otherwise I think it would generally be good enough if the contribution could cover all the costs, plus a cup of coffee for the dev.

It actually goes further than oss, our society is also facing the same issue, think about volunteering and various civil society organisations / groups.

3 Likes
4

Yes. I already said that. But if the dev does decide to make money by providing a pro plan and you’re then forking with sole purpose to not pay even if you’re capable of then yes you’re freeloading.

Source available is a great strategy for monetisation over foss, I agree. FUTO had to do so to avoid same problems. But this doesn’t mean that just because something is open source and you can fork it, doesn’t mean it should be forked solely for monetisation purpose and not pay a single penny to the real creator.

I think I should also release all my apps under a license like FUTO. Thanks for sharing this idea.

5

Agreed. Any developer would love some code contribution for their project and YES, it’s a VALID way to contribute to a project.

But if a project is on a server there’s server cost, for apple appstore $100/year, this is why we don’t see a lot of software flourishing in oss space.

Yes some people would work for charity and if the developer explicitly says “they don’t want any money”, cool but in most case money would be the best contribution to any project.

I am volunteering for a local medical group. I’m providing then support through my development skills free of cost!

6

It bugs me a lot and it is not limited to server cost, everything has their cost, e.g. time, knowledge, effort, etc. When people taking all these for granted, it really bugs me.

The recent US budget cut turmoil made me to review my donation strategy, I focused only on the tech I directly / indirectly use and the ground to cover is MASSIVE. And that does not cover the civil society orgs that I really like. :sweat_smile:

I do the same for 1 national charity plus 1 local charity.

7

You will always have users—whether software is open or closed source—trying to get everything for free. That’s just how it is: piracy happens everywhere. I like the way Gabe Newell put it:

‘We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem.’

If you look at Aseprite, for example: it used to be GPL-licensed, and now it’s source-available. You’re allowed to compile it yourself for personal use, yet it’s still #863 on Steam’s best-seller list. Why? Because it offers users an easy, reliable way to acquire the software—providing value—instead of forcing them to get it elsewhere.

8

FOSS operates by default as a gift economy. FOSS is a gift by the developer, which explicitly states by contract it comes with no warranty and you get generally use as you want, with varying strictness of copy left.

If the developer does not expect any money for using their FOSS, then I will not feel bad. They have done society an amazing favor by providing source code and a product we can use and extend as we wish. I will never downplay that.

The moment that a developer expects money in return, it’s no longer a gift economy, and FOSS has a very different monetization strategies. FOSS can be monetized by some means - such as I pay for Bitwarden instead of self hosting. These are valid, but it’s still valid to create a fork like Vaultwarden and self host.

—-

I contribute to FOSS projects. Those projects solely rely on the community and FOSS developers. But even the maintainers of the project are fully aware that they expect nothing in return for the code they’ve provided.

There is a very real problem that FOSS does not have resources. And while I believe we should donate back, it should not be done out of finger pointing and shaming.

I truly believe that more FOSS should be funded by non profit organizations and government to provide public infrastructure.

But smaller devs should not be surprised when they license code with MIT or no copyleft and big orgs use it with no contribution back. AGPL all the way, or GPLv2/3 for client side only software, considering LGPL for some shared libraries.

2 Likes
9

Keep in mind FUTO is not a valid FLOSS license. It’s still in the spirit of having source available code so it can be audited and ensure nothing malicious will be ran. This is good for privacy respecting users. But it’s not FLOSS as it violates some of the freedoms outlined.

Again, all are valid ways to license your software, just depends what you want to do.

10

I agree with everything you said.

I can’t contribute to every products due to limited income.

Having said that, I’ll be more willing to donate or subscribe if more services accepted Monero (or other anonymous payment methods).

Too many services claim to not collect payment information by getting a third party to handle the payments. Paying with a credit card to a third party is still giving out my CC.

11

Yeah, but since I want to provide source to show transparency but at the same time would like to earn money from the software, I think a source available license is the sweet middle ground for me. I know that this is not the true open source spirit, but still this makes for a very valid business model.

12

Makes sense. Source available still provides trust in running the code! But the code will most likely die with the copyright owner, as most external devs won’t touch such licenses with a 10 foot pole. Consider having some “kill switch” which converts the license to AGPL in the event of dire circumstances so the code doesn’t rot.

1 Like
13

There appears to be quite a few things in this thread getting conflated/mixed up. I don’t really have the time to clarify it all right now, but might later.

People who contribute via source code, or donations, or by paying for/subscribing to features is largely entirely unrelated to self hosting and are entirely distinct aspects.

Also even if a feature is locked away and source is available to bypass that, the vast majority of people do not do that.

Lastly, just because something is open source does not mean anyone can fork it and meaningfully continue it. There is a vast amount of knowledge/experience that often goes into a project that cannot be simply picked up.

8 Likes