1. 15
  1. 5

    free-as-in-beer unless you make more than $1m/yr, free-as-in-speech for everyone seems like a really good license to me. if anyone reading this thinks it’s a bad idea, could you explain the drawbacks?

    1. 3

      It doesn’t seem like a terrible idea, especially from the perspective of the authors, in the sense of “how do we monetize this code without creating barriers to entry and access”.

      However it does create a few additional items of overhead:

      • For users of the software, they and their finance teams now have additional planning and compliance overhead to factor in (roughly: if and when we are above this revenue threshold, we need to arrange payment and reporting of this line item and include that in our financial modeling)
      • For users and potential users, the presence of the threshold may add concern that the pricing and/or threshold could change in future
      • For the authors of the software, they may now need additional services and staffing to accept payments and chase down businesses of the software who they want to seek payment from

      Those are currently the reality of doing technology business in many situations. And as costs they are probably generally smaller than the overall value generated.

    2. 2

      When you select packages and technologies to maintain and build your .NET applications, start pricing in the expectation to pay money for it - because that’s the only way to avoid surprises and supply chain shocks in the future: by pricing them in today.

      This is a problem that’s not unique to .NET. Look at C++. Want to build a commercial cross platform GUI app, consider the Qt library/framework. Can’t/don’t want to pay? Then find a free alternative.