As somebody trying to make a living out of open source software, I am really glad of this new movement.
I predict that eventually we will see more and more projects following the same route and try to monetize their products and it will become much more normal, companies will get used to it and eventually everybody will be better off.
Whilst I certainly understand ( and mainly side with ) your point - to plays devils advocate would they?
Reading `samuelcolvin` comment on that thread made me think - mainly on point #4
" One definition of anti-social is "something that would break society if everyone did it". Take a minute to image a world where every successful software project made this move: node, webpack, react, angular, vue, bootstrap, python, rails, django, etc. etc. etc. - we've all decided to charge $2000/year - what would handsontable inc.'s toolchain or website cost? Would you have even learn to code? The software industry would look like the airline industry, the world would be a less fun place. "
I think they pose a good point - How is any hobbyist meant to get setup with a solid JS stack which involves 10's / hundreds of dependencies if you have to pay 10k/y+ licence fees before you have any paying customers? It actually feels like the opposite of progress as now only the big bugs can afford to set up shop with the best tech for their product.
Ultimately I think there's space for commercially available open source projects - the issue is the lack of companies / individuals giving back to sustain this movement.
> The software industry would look like the airline industry, the world would be a less fun place.
Yes, but the point is that the airline/aerospace industry exists, as do many other industries and profession that require expensive tooling. Heck, the software industry existed and produced a variety of successful products in the late '70s to early '90s before FOSS started taking off.
Paying for tools is not an insurmountable obstacle.
I understand this point very well, but I believe we are way too far on the wrong side.
First of all I don't think is fair from software developer. We do real engineering and still we are not recognize as engineer. A transaction to a more rigours profession is good in my opinion and if that includes costs like receiving a degree or upfront buying expensive equipment, I am not so against it.
A product that is sold ensure maintenance and ongoing development which is very very needed with too many tools and libraries developed by amateurs that polutes the whole ecosystem.
Try to reverse your example, immagine the airline industry as it was the software one. Would it be more fun? Surely, we would have jetpacks, small private elicopters and everything will "move fast", but they will crush any other flights... Would it be better for the society? I doubt it.
Get a day job and use your spare time to produce Free Software. It works for musicians and artists, and it works for our creative endeavor as well. (Code is art and little of what we do is genuine engineering.)
As somebody who produces Free Software and has a day job, I think that this new movement will strangle itself, and that that's an appropriate fate.
Actually it's a bit sad musicians must have a day job. I quit any aspirations to make a living of music years ago and didn't look back, purely for the money (can't send my kids to the mines anymore). I know people who were well known internationally recognised musicians who quit music for the same reason. So that example is not the best you can find. Not to me anyway.
I predict that eventually we will see more and more projects following the same route and try to monetize their products and it will become much more normal, companies will get used to it and eventually everybody will be better off.