adouglas89
commented
1 year ago I am actually producing a piece of equipment that is open source but not open source by that definition, so I have sympathies. The unfortunate reality is that this stuff is a lot of work, and the discussion at that link does not actually offer any viable scenario for the developer to get paid unless some kind of demand is made for royalties. I am ok with paying a royalty to use this, but I do require the source code for modification, to allow customers to produce replacement units in a pinch and so on. There is value in open source aside from the model proposed in that link.
There are also ways that we can use that approach and still pay developers, but they have not been developed yet. I am also pursuing the possibility of a crowdfunding campaign to pay off the dev costs of my machine, for instance, and thereafter it could be completely free as in beer for all to use. However if the community doesn't want to do that, well someone has to pay the dev costs I'm afraid. I'm hopeful we can do that, but this does not lie entirely in the hands of developers. The rest of the community needs to do their part.
my project is www.openerv.ca
Would you consider releasing this under an open-source license rather than the current non-commercial one?
Ref: https://mifactori.de/non-commercial-is-not-open-source/