It’s funny how common this mindset is in the self-hosting community:
“If I’m running it on my own hardware, the software should basically be free… maybe I’ll toss a tiny ‘tip’ if I feel generous.”
The logic seems to be that since there’s no ongoing server cost, the developer’s time, skill, and effort must somehow be worth nothing and that we should magically fund the entire project through some hypothetical cloud version that they themselves will never use.
It’s like showing up to a brewery with your own growler and expecting the beer to be free because you didn’t use their glass.
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with this. If the software is free, then it’s free. It’s up to the authors how they want to license it.
Personally, I write code and publish it in the hopes that it will help someone. If someone comes in and says “there’s this bug, fix it!” I will only do so if it will benefit me, or if I feel like it.
The article and discussion here is about open source software which is not free software. Thats where the problem lies it is assumed that open source software has be free.
Thats where the problem lies it is assumed that open source software has be free.
But the article is not talking about this scenario. They’re specifically talking about open source software that’s also free software:
Your favorite apps run on code maintained by exhausted volunteers.
So it’s perfectly fine for some users to expect the software to be free.
The real problem is that some project owners have a sense of duty to maintain their creations no matter what, leading to burnout, which is the point of the article. The article also details ways to fix it. Some of those involve the users being proactive (e.g. taking the initiative to donate consistently), but ultimately it’s up to the owner to take some action. Like I mentioned, if I publish some code for free, I don’t mind my users to expect that my software will always be free. But if they think I’m going to lose sleep trying to meet their demands without compensation, welp, they are dreaming.
To be fair - this mindset is hardly exclusive to self-hosters. The dotcom era itself kicked off because it was easier to get advertisers to pay for server costs than users.
It’s funny how common this mindset is in the self-hosting community: “If I’m running it on my own hardware, the software should basically be free… maybe I’ll toss a tiny ‘tip’ if I feel generous.”
The logic seems to be that since there’s no ongoing server cost, the developer’s time, skill, and effort must somehow be worth nothing and that we should magically fund the entire project through some hypothetical cloud version that they themselves will never use.
It’s like showing up to a brewery with your own growler and expecting the beer to be free because you didn’t use their glass.
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with this. If the software is free, then it’s free. It’s up to the authors how they want to license it.
Personally, I write code and publish it in the hopes that it will help someone. If someone comes in and says “there’s this bug, fix it!” I will only do so if it will benefit me, or if I feel like it.
The article and discussion here is about open source software which is not free software. Thats where the problem lies it is assumed that open source software has be free.
Freedom in software does not mean free software.
But the article is not talking about this scenario. They’re specifically talking about open source software that’s also free software:
So it’s perfectly fine for some users to expect the software to be free.
The real problem is that some project owners have a sense of duty to maintain their creations no matter what, leading to burnout, which is the point of the article. The article also details ways to fix it. Some of those involve the users being proactive (e.g. taking the initiative to donate consistently), but ultimately it’s up to the owner to take some action. Like I mentioned, if I publish some code for free, I don’t mind my users to expect that my software will always be free. But if they think I’m going to lose sleep trying to meet their demands without compensation, welp, they are dreaming.
Plus or minus some amount of piracy, sure
Oh for sure!
To be fair - this mindset is hardly exclusive to self-hosters. The dotcom era itself kicked off because it was easier to get advertisers to pay for server costs than users.
Careful bro you’re making it sound like exploitation has been normalized in the name of ‘free software’, but actually… Oh wait.
Exactly right.