You must log in or register to comment.
It’s a sign that you are an adult.
Not an adult, just have enough money
It’s an interesting point! would children with enough money pay for something that is free?
I know it’s not necessarily applicable, but your comment made me think of those Stanley mugs.
Do children spend money on those?
I find something extremely satisfying giving money to people who are working for free and offering a superb free service. So many awesome libraries that are given to us ad free by people.
How often does one pay for free/libre software? Unless choosing to send a voluntary contribution to a project, which is not the same as paying in my eyes, it sure has not happened to me in over 25 years when it was easier to order a set of CDs than trying to download the ISOs on a 56k modem.
Unless choosing to send a voluntary contribution to a project, which is not the same as paying in my eyes
Why is voluntary contribution not paying?
A payment is compensation for a debt, and a donation is a gift. The word pay is often used when the compensation is compulsory.
Certain open source projects will sell binaries along with some level of support so that you don’t have to compile it yourself.
I’m fine with that as long as it isn’t a proprietary version of the project (cough, Rustdesk, cough)
How often does one pay for free/libre software?
Companies signing up for RHEL subscriptions pay for free software (they technically also do when signing up for Oracle Linux and the other RHEL copycats but those usually don’t contribute upstrem).
For regular consumers, the same is true when buying a Steam Deck.
I bought Krita on the Windows Store to get seamless updates and also fund the project after I asked for an improved text utility and the reply was “Have you donated?”.
Signing up to RHEL is paying for support. True but missing the mark.
I saw this post as “avoid adware. Donate to freeware/FOSS.”
There’s plenty of people who donate to free apps. VLC comes to mind.
Signing up to RHEL is paying for support. True but missing the mark.
I don’t think it’s missing the mark because one big reason to sign with Red Hat is that in many cases RH is the actual developer, not just some technician who does the install.
Uhhh they are the developers of the distro (so the packaging mechanism and the build infrastructure which builds and installs packages.) But the kernel and the cli tools / libraries and the applications are not written by them.
Bro, look up what Red Hat develops before making such a comment. All that development is only funded because RHEL costs money.
Yep. Funds directly go to RHEL staff and project dev
They are paying for support, not the software itself. A long time ago you could go to the store and buy a box containing the CDs for Mandrake Linux as an example just like you can do with windows right now. You were not paying for the software itself but for the media and the box. Even when you pay for a binary on windows, you pay for the service of them compiling it and making it available to you, not the software itself since it is free/libre.
You were not paying for the software itself but for the media and the box. Even when you pay for a binary on windows, you pay for the service of them compiling it and making it available to you, not the software itself since it is free/libre.
So nobody is ever paying for free software by your ridiculous definition.
IMO we all should - pay for Free software. I won’t mind if devs start putting a price tag on their work, and it should be the norm to donate to our most-used FOSS projects. I’m just having problems deciding who to donate to, because if all the stuff we use on Linux day in, day out were for pay, I couldn’t afford it
We should have some kind of FOSS payment group. You pay 10 dollars each month and you can add projects, which share your donation. I would be broke if I had to donate seperatly for them all. This of course isn’t perfect but seems like a great start
A cool app or would be where you tell it how much money you can spare to donate to projects and it tells you how much to give to each of them based on how much time you spent using them. You could even go on to combine this with others on a website, so that the payouts to each project are bigger. There are so many people like us who want to donate to our favorite projects but don’t because it feels too complicated. It could make a huge difference.
Yeah! If someone was willing to make this please do!
How is that different from something like ko-fi?
I thought you still have to pay separately on ko-fi?
I think they were saying, you pay $10 a month and it gets split up by the projects you use.
Exactly
Oh I misunderstood. I thought the idea was to pool donations together in a group.
But ko-fi allows your to set arbitrary amounts, doesn’t it?
Maybe this is a naive view, but I wouldn’t mind paying a programmer to improve free software when there’s something I need. Then everyone can benefit the same way I benefit from other people improving the software in similar or other ways.
For example, a while ago I realized that the OpenBSD file(1) tool didn’t detect utf-8 encoding, which was something I wanted. It doesn’t seem like a priority of the devs, but generally an improvement for everyone if it worked. If there was an easy way to pay a programmer to implement it for a reasonable price I could pay for that. If more people wanted the same thing we could share the cost too. Finally if the devs thought it was a feature in line with the goals of the project it could be merged into the main source code and everyone would benefit.
I wish this system of hiring programmers was easier to navigate.I would pay for advanced functionality, backups and support. There is no reason a project needs a non profit status. They can make all the money in the world as long as they aren’t forcing proprietary software and SaSS.
I’ve made a few contributions to the Linux Mint team and it’s free. It has saved a few machines from the e-waste landfills and I have it on my laptop right now. It’s super reliable and just works so the devs deserve the extra help.
I’m totally okay with paying for prebuilt images of free software. It’s what is meant.
Remember kids:
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
deleted by creator
