Ask HN: What is wrong with 1$ subscription license for open source softwares?
Every now and then I see core teams of open source softwares who are struggling to develop their software in a sustainable manner. The question that surprises me is: what is wrong with 1$ subscription license per year/month?
Lets say Canonical asks for a 1$ subscription license per month. With 10 million regular users and many more in server environment it is damn easy to earn 100 million dollars per month. I believe 90% of users are only using 10-20 application on daily basis. Then Canonical could hire some professional developers for these major applications/libraries/frameworks.
Almost everyone could pay 1$ per month. At least we get more high quality - sustainable - open source software.
Why is everyone focusing on two extremes? Either fully free software or deadly commercial one with $$$ license?
7 comments
[ 11.8 ms ] story [ 32.2 ms ] threadYou could ask for a regular/monthly contribution. There is something similar with Ubuntu and others; when you download Ubuntu, you are asked to make a voluntary monetary contribution.
Ubuntu is special because there's only one version for community and commercial, which can have paid support, whereas RHEL/CentOS is kind of a hack-around that they might as well make completely free except for the commercial packages (RPMs).
Furthermore, your assumption that populist obscurity is some how a negative is FUD and ignorant of Postgres' historical obscurity until recent years.
EDB is the largest commercial vendor with EDB Postgres Plus being a compatible, cheaper Oracle DBMS replacement.
Furthermore, they contribute upstream all the time.
https://www.enterprisedb.com/blog/new-postgresql-tools-are-l...
All this would most likely kill the attractiveness of the solution and one would switch e.g. from Ubuntu to another Linux distro not requiring a perpetual license.