It's not about the definition of ownership, either. The author of FOSS software retains ownership, unless they explicitly convey it to someone else.

It's about how software is licensed--the terms and conditions under which someone can make a copy. That's why it's called the GNU Public License, or the MIT License, and why there's a LICENSE file.

The mere act of copying does not convey ownership, and never has.

Ok, but this kind of seems like semantic quibbling.

At least since I've been programming (early 2000s), open source has been almost entirely free as in beer. Whatever the origins of the movement, as it actually exists today and has for a long time, both definitions of free are integral parts of the concept. If anyone ever uses the term "open source" in the widely understood, colloquial sense, a dozen eager HN commenters always jump in to explain the exact bounds of the various terms in their own idiolect. I can occasionally enjoy a good debate about semantics, except on HN it's basically always orthogonal to whatever issue is actually being discussed. I've been reading on HN about how the term has been misappropriated for 10 years and I'm very ready to move on.

The parent's point is that if you are looking to make some money, putting a bunch of code on github with an open source license and helpful readme is extremely unlikely to move you towards that goal.

I have found not all open source to be the same in the modern era. The FOSS of yesteryear has been replaced by a lot of projects aimed at enterprise where the FOSS offering is the "free demo." This may have been novel and clever of the original pioneers of the practice, but there's a lot of cargo culting going on.

The worst offenders release the source but with gotcha licensing, wait for the enterprise to use it, then detect their usage and go in demanding payment or be sued. This happened to my team enough times to be a pattern.

One does wonder, if we'd gotten really used to the idea of paying for software, if advertising, and the resulting tracking that came from it, would have really taken off as much.

If the language were centered around donations (charitable gifts) instead of revenue and the implicit expectations that go with it, then I might take a different view.

Netscape basically died and was replaced by Firefox which doesn't/can't effectively charge users for the software so instead makes money by selling default search engine, etc.

Netscape existed as the internet was coming into existence. You used to have to buy a physical copy in the store to install it. People barely knew how to use their computers so the activation cost for bypassing their "pay wall" was high enough.

First, a self-correction: Netscape did not produce open source products until it open-sourced Navigator 5.0 in 1998. Until then, Navigator was freeware: free to download and run, but not open source.[1] I shouldn't have mentioned them, but my point still stands.

Second, it depends on what you define as success and failure. Netscape made its pre-IPO shareholders money if they timed their stock sales right. But the stock didn't go up because the company was profitable. It went up along with every other dot-com stock until the 2000-2002 crash, based on hopes and dreams, not fundamentals. The company never turned anywhere near close to a profit.

To me, a successful company is one that makes a sustainable profit based on its business fundamentals, not one that makes its founders and early investors rich in an investment bubble.

[1] Correction: Netscape did charge for the browser if used in a commercial context, but few people actually paid up.

Most people only measure success as something like being a B or Trillion dollar company, and thats part of the reason in a different way why nobody pays for FOSS.

I assume you mean "sell it before you open source it."

If you found one willing buyer while it was still closed source, odds are there are others. Why deprive yourself of additional income? Open sourcing does happen from closed source, but usually that's long after the income stream has exhausted itself (see, e.g., https://github.com/microsoft/ms-dos).

Honestly, there's a real elegance to this model.

I'd argue the best possible model for goods that have no marginal costs (aka IP) is the "pay me to create it" model.

As in, let a creator decide how much they value creating the work. Then pay them that to create it - then release it free for everyone.

---

No ridiculous societal restraints that cost time and money to enforce (poorly) as IP law. Compensation is happening. Creating is encouraged.

Practical constraints make it unlikely we'll get much closer to this than Kickstarter (and equivalents) but it's a very honest model, that works with intellectual property by default.

There's nothing stopping you, true. But I think you will find that nobody is going to buy software for whatever thousands of dollars it took you to make it. So the limitation in this case is a practical one, not a legal or moral one.

Are you aware of what FOSS stands for?

That can happen regardless of which storefront you use to buy a free app. It's more of a developer-specific nitpick than a chronic problem with FOSS and freeware.

If you're happy to sponsor the app's development, then owning the App Store version should make you feel proud. The developer is still able to make a living thanks to you, and they're offering extended support if you're unwilling to use a fork of the free version. A good example of this is Dwarf Fortress, which I have bought on Steam 3 times now so that I could gift it to two of my friends. God willing, nothing will prevent me from buying a 4th and 5th copy when Christmas rolls around.

Sounds like the problem is the app later became nonfree.

This kind of thing happens to apps regardless of whether they are closed source or FOSS.

If management of a closed source app in an app store changes in a way that you don't like, you have zero recourse.

If it happens to a FOSS app, then you could potentially use the source to install the app yourself or pay another supplier to do it for you.

Although given the reality of the low cost of mobile apps and small, niche user bases, your purchase probably amounts to something more like contributing to a tip jar anyway.

Without knowing how much you've paid for proprietary software, that could be a lot, or a little. If you're coming from a position where there is alternative FOSS software available to use, that's your bubble/sphere of experience. In other realms, say software for doing aerospace CAD, there is no FOSS available because it's just such a niche piece of software.

Maybe but lots of $2 apps exist from random devs who don't take much responsibility.

The whole paragraph titled "Isn't this just Tidelift again?" is exactly how Claude describes something it is excited about.

I don't know about you, but I personally really appreciate when people warn me in advance that something is going to be a waste of time.

"and I don't think that's right, and the distinction matters" Yeah right. lol

It's really not, actually. Often I read the comments before the article and getting a head's up that the article is slop is invaluable.

It's not only not 'worse than the LLM prose', it's a community service!

I for one always appreciate it. The comments help me judge whether I'm right or wrong in my own opinion.

> Now, the popular way to tell this story is "the system is breaking," and I don't think that's right, and the distinction matters. The system isn't breaking. It's stable, at a level of human cost we've collectively decided to put up with.

Reads like an LLM to me. "Load bearing" also used a few paragraphs down.

It felt like unedited, unstyled Claude output. e.g. "No, and the difference is the important bit."

This article feels like it was written by a human who has just read to much llm writing

Before LLMs no load was ever borne

The active maintainer(s) get paid for doing ongoing work, the same as any other job. That creates incentive to be the maintainer of a project. If the maintainer(s) isn't/aren't active, then there should be incentive for someone else to take over. Same as any other job.

Just have npm pay the owner of the package. Let the owner handle the money distribution. It doesn't have to be hippie BS all the way down to be better than what we have. You people sometimes.

I think Alex Gaynor is essentially right here[1].

[1]: https://alexgaynor.net/2025/apr/08/putting-a-price-tag-on-op...

It's not a bait and switch because the old version of the software that was released with the old license can still be used as such. If you call this bait and switch then I suppose this means that you somehow feel entitled to future versions of the software having the same license, forever.

Why is it enshittification if you only have to pay when you have >$5M in revenue? Is your world so shit if you cross that threshold?