We should have more “source available, but you still need to pay for it” licenses
Best of both worlds, the company still gets to sell a product, and we can inspect the source, or even submit PR’s (and maybe get a little kickback (but that’s pie in the sky))
Granted, it’s super easy to remove the license restrictions with the source available
Also, many opensource services can be selfhosted for free, while the company/developer gets they payment via donations and/or charging a support service fee to enterprises/people.
That and exposure to the homelab community which in turn can lead to future implementation in enterprise.
Only in term of security/privacy. Not control and freedom. And without freedom to modify, share and reuse software we are in a straight path to the lack of privacy again.
We should have more “source available, but you still need to pay for it” licenses
Best of both worlds, the company still gets to sell a product, and we can inspect the source, or even submit PR’s (and maybe get a little kickback (but that’s pie in the sky))
Granted, it’s super easy to remove the license restrictions with the source available
That’s what donations are for.
Also, many opensource services can be selfhosted for free, while the company/developer gets they payment via donations and/or charging a support service fee to enterprises/people.
That and exposure to the homelab community which in turn can lead to future implementation in enterprise.
This was just an idea, I don’t understand why the downvotes. Just counter if you don’t agree.
The downvotes aren’t surprising; it’s not a very popular idea
I still think it’s an idea worth exploring, though
Businesses won’t support Linux if they can’t sell something, and it gives us access to the code
Only in term of security/privacy. Not control and freedom. And without freedom to modify, share and reuse software we are in a straight path to the lack of privacy again.