Nobody pays for FOSS, we can force them to
A proposal to make companies pay for free and open source software (FOSS) by charging for access to package registries has reignited long‑running tensions over how – or whether – open source should be monetized. Commenters debate licensing strategies, “bait and switch” license changes, dual‑licensing and storefront sales, and whether registries or governments could realistically channel money back to maintainers. Many argue that introducing mandatory payments would distort incentives, fragment ecosystems, and undermine the “free as in freedom” ethos, while others see some form of paid model as necessary to sustain critical infrastructure.
Perceptions of FOSS and Money
- Many argue: if you release code as FOSS, you implicitly accept that most users, especially companies, will not pay; you can’t later complain about exactly what the license allowed.
- Others push back: the system is structurally unfair; critical infrastructure is maintained for free while others monetize it, so changing incentives is legitimate.
- Some emphasize they write FOSS to benefit others, not to get paid, and see later monetization pressure as a corruption of that spirit.
Licensing Models and “Bait-and-Switch”
- Several commenters criticize projects that start permissive, gain popularity and contributions, then tighten licenses as a kind of “enshittification” or rug pull.
- Others reply it’s not a bait-and-switch: old versions remain under the old license; no one is entitled to future versions staying permissive.
- Debate over “source-available”, OpenRAIL, AGPL, and business-restricted licenses:
- Pro: could have avoided current problems if projects started with “pay if revenue > $5M” terms.
- Con: hard to audit, invites legal fights, and doesn’t get early adoption traction.
Registries Charging Companies to Fund Maintainers
- Core proposal: package registries charge organizations and distribute funds to maintainers.
- Supporters see it as a pragmatic way to monetize “supply” (convenient, default registries) while keeping software itself free.
- Critics raise issues:
- Registries are themselves companies that may hoard value.
- Huge legal/tax complexity in fairly routing money across jurisdictions and projects.
- Risk of gamification: dependency spam, trivial forks, and perverse incentives for PRs and forking.
- Might fracture trust or push people away from contributing.
Alternative Funding and Business Models
- Mentioned models: paid binaries in app stores; dual-licensing (AGPL + commercial); support contracts; “extended support” for EOL versions; crowdfunding and threshold pledges; SaaS built on FOSS.
- Some claim most attempts to “sell FOSS itself” fail; sustainable paths are support, services, or getting paid as an employee/contractor.
- Others propose more systemic fixes: public funding (“Public Money, Public Code”), UBI, or treating software stacks as infrastructure funded via taxes.
Philosophy: “Free” and Capitalism
- Repeated clarifications: FOSS is “free as in speech”, not necessarily “free as in beer,” though in practice it is usually both.
- Disagreement over capitalism’s role: some see monetization pressure as toxic; others insist rent and food require money, so funding mechanisms are necessary.
- Concern that adding money changes community dynamics and motivations in unpredictable ways.
Debate Over Article Style / LLM Use
- Several commenters suspect the article is LLM-written or LLM-influenced, citing certain phrasings; others strongly disagree and find it coherent.
- Some appreciate early warnings about “AI slop”; others find such complaints more annoying than any stylistic issues.