Unfortunately, there has always been the issue that a not-insignificant percentage of users of FOSS software believe the FREE part means "free as in beer" and take umbrage when asked to contribute.
I've long been a proponent (and I know I'm in a minority) that has advocated for a shift in the marketing of FOSS applications from "donation based" to "value based". Meaning that the expectation is that if you enjoy the software, you pay an amount that you believe is commensurate to your use. This is voluntarily of course...if you can't pay, than please use it and enjoy it. But those who can pay, should pay...at least a little bit, to offset the costs for those who can't.
It's more or less that the wording of FOSS apps needs to change so that you are expected to contribute if you can.
Just my opinion. Like I said, I know I'm in the minority. Just not a fan of the percentage of users that has always existed that (falsely) think that asking for money for your project is somehow anathema to the Open Source ideal and whine whenever they're asked to contribute.
Also what the hell is up with everyone saying "free as beer"?
Beer isn't free!
The full saying is "Free as in Speech, not Free as in Beer"
Basically the "Free" in free means that it's free to do with as you please, modify, etc... But not free as in "here's a free product...like getting a free beer"
That's also confusing and it is not the full saying. The full saying is "free as in free speech, not free beer".
From the FSF website:
Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. Think of “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer”. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
I have over €1500 donated to opensource projects.
I have only once bought a commercial software license worth €7/lifetime.
I like that terminology. I use some very high quality, high visibility FOSS software and sometimes feel bad that I more frequently donate to smaller projects that bring me value by filling a specific want or need that no one else is working on.
Unfortunately, there has always been the issue that a not-insignificant percentage of users of FOSS software believe the FREE part means "free as in beer" and take umbrage when asked to contribute.
I've long been a proponent (and I know I'm in a minority) that has advocated for a shift in the marketing of FOSS applications from "donation based" to "value based". Meaning that the expectation is that if you enjoy the software, you pay an amount that you believe is commensurate to your use. This is voluntarily of course...if you can't pay, than please use it and enjoy it. But those who can pay, should pay...at least a little bit, to offset the costs for those who can't.
It's more or less that the wording of FOSS apps needs to change so that you are expected to contribute if you can.
Just my opinion. Like I said, I know I'm in the minority. Just not a fan of the percentage of users that has always existed that (falsely) think that asking for money for your project is somehow anathema to the Open Source ideal and whine whenever they're asked to contribute.
Also what the hell is up with everyone saying "free as beer"?
Beer isn't free!
The full saying is "Free as in Speech, not Free as in Beer"
Basically the "Free" in free means that it's free to do with as you please, modify, etc... But not free as in "here's a free product...like getting a free beer"
That's also confusing and it is not the full saying. The full saying is "free as in free speech, not free beer".
From the FSF website:
I have over €1500 donated to opensource projects.
I have only once bought a commercial software license worth €7/lifetime.
I like that terminology. I use some very high quality, high visibility FOSS software and sometimes feel bad that I more frequently donate to smaller projects that bring me value by filling a specific want or need that no one else is working on.