Open Source Maintenance Fee

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

What WiX Toolset Is and Technical Context

  • Thread clarifies this is WiX Toolset (Windows installer tooling), not the website builder.
  • Several describe WiX as powerful but extremely complex, with poor or historically outdated docs; others note it exposes the full (ugly) MSI/Windows Installer model, so much of the pain is inherent to Windows.
  • Some praise WiX’s build/CI integration and flexibility versus GUI-based commercial tools; others say they’d gladly pay for easier, better-documented alternatives.

How the Open Source Maintenance Fee (OSMF) Works

  • Source remains under an OSI license; the fee applies to:
    • Official binaries (GitHub releases, NuGet packages).
    • Using the project’s issue tracker/discussions if you generate revenue from it.
  • Non-paying users may:
    • Use the source freely and build their own binaries, including commercially.
    • Redistribute their own builds, subject to the OSS license.
  • Fee tiers are low monthly amounts by org size; maintainers frame it as payment for maintenance/support, not for the code itself.

License Compatibility and Enforceability Debates

  • Some argue the chosen license allows charging for official binaries but forbids adding extra restrictions to redistribution; others think an additional EULA on binaries is fine.
  • Multiple comments note anyone can legally fork, build, and publish binaries, making the fee partially “honor system.”
  • Questions are raised about:
    • Whether restricting GitHub “Releases” clicks is compatible with GitHub’s own terms.
    • How this interacts with various OSS/FOSS definitions and with GPL-family licenses (compatibility is asserted but not fully resolved in-thread).
  • Skeptics worry the README/EULA wording (“if you use this to generate revenue, the fee is required”) is misleading relative to the actual license rights.

Impact on Users: Indies, Companies, and Contributors

  • Concern: small indie developers with tiny revenue might be deterred; responses say they can self-compile or that $10/month is trivial for a real business.
  • Some fear a “two-class” system (paid maintainers vs. unpaid contributors); others say almost nobody contributes to boring maintenance anyway.
  • Corporate angle:
    • Maintainers report many companies are willing to pay once there is a formal requirement that activates legal/procurement.
    • Others say their legal departments would just ban the tool as too risky/complex.

Broader Views on Funding Open Source

  • Supporters see OSMF as a pragmatic, Red-Hat-like model: free code, paid convenience and support, aimed at reducing maintainer burnout and “entitled” users.
  • Critics see it as “subscriptionizing” open source, edging toward corporate creep and undermining the “gift economy” ethos.
  • Alternative ideas discussed: better corporate culture for donations, bounties, new licenses with profit-sharing or commercial-use restrictions.
  • Several note this won’t be a silver bullet but could be one useful pattern; some other projects have reportedly started experimenting with OSMF.