So it will have good mainline linux support?

I mostly donate w Bitcoin

Aren’t there better coins with better privacy (which might be a helpful property , because being known as a generous person might make you a attractive target to charity scams attempts) and also much lower fees (monero? nano? , which reportedly has no fees) and faster transactions times? (if we are using digital currencies, we might as well try to support the best project by using it).

source available can allow a lot of things including modification of the source code (and in particular adding quality of life improvements and updating the code to run on modern platforms). Some restrictions like not allowing selling or even not allowing competition (for example allowing the game engine to run only the original game , or disallowing the removal of monetization).

If you look at openage (age of empires 2 reimplementation) the game is not playable 25 years after release and that game is considered a classic, we could lose a lot of very good games or software.

He is locked in California, a fairly progressive and leftist state i think , I am not entirely certain all that therapy is a good thing, i think i watched a documentary saying that psychopaths only learn from therapy how to be better manipulators and i feel like he sounds like psychopath even now.

With that said if he gets out of prison i think he should be allowed to participate in FOSS (when someone reviews his contributions), i can’t help but wonder if his reportedly unhinged behavior on the kernel mailing list was handled better (e.g. mandating he will go to therapy) the murder would not have happened.

I would argue that even having a project as source available is better then closed source and can still be pretty good, look at for example the FreeSpace 2 Source Code Project.

If anybody want to ask a game creator to make a game open source and he refuses, suggesting a source available license might still be a good idea.

TL;DW?

You realize that the owner could be a truck driver for texas? that’s what mutual funds and pension funds do, they manage assets.

and taking a fixed price is like having a grocery store where all the products have the same price, businesses do a cost benefit analysis (estimating stuff like costs and expected income), having a single price does not make sense.

Create proprietary software project , sell the software and give all the profit to starving kids in africa beside taking in a modest salary (say the US median salary) and call fair code, it’s more fair then hashicorp CEO getting something like 100K a month in salary and stocks.

Following the links and searching around, I found this: Andrzej “vosen” Janik, the lead dev, says in his FAQ:

There is a fork which seems more active (see 1 and 2)

It should probably at least be mentioned on the read me of the original project.

I have been with multiple different communities that had GPL and other licensed code stolen for profit in proprietary programs. In all instances, the FSF, SFC and EFF were all contacted and nobody cared.

at least the SFC did some enforcing that worked, but i got the feeling these organisations are too “nice” , If the case is a slam dunk maybe it is possible to get a lawyer who will work by getting a large percentage of the earnings.

At that point, you’ve become a business. So yeah, you need skill to fundraise.

or a non profit, and not surprising running a business or a non profit requires the skills to manage a business or a non profit, iirc the software freedom conservatory and maybe the SPI say the can help with fundraising, but you need to be modest and consider you might benefit from learning from other people.

Fuck the companies, they will always take and never give anything back. They won’t give you money anyways, so might as well shut them down.

That’s just factually wrong, for example most of the contribution to the linux kernel are from companies, blender development fund is a good case study for this (see how much each corporate sponsors pays)

paradoxically just because an organisation is a non profit does not mean it does not sell anything, it means that the people who “own” it are not doing it for a profit (e.g. voting members, board members , that is what is suppose to be legally guaranteed ), for example the wikimedia foundation (the creator of wikipedias ) sells access to data, MIT university for example is also a non profit.

and i feel like the profit incentive might cause problems for the snap store, flathub warns when an app is closed source so it might be risky to use it, snap does not do that and maybe that is because that could hurt profits.

Fundraising is skill, and it needs to be learnt, I have looked at a fairly large chunk of open source project that are successfully funded and i think that is what sets them apart.

I think it is important that users should have a very clear understanding of how you are doing, if you need X money to keep doing this, there should be a pop up saying you need X money on the software and it should be very hard to miss on the website and read me.

Will some people not like that? probably but you can’t please everyone and you shouldn’t let a vocal minority determines how things happen.

Calling it hate is an exaggeration , people are entitled to their opinion and informing other people by criticizing snap.

Another advantage not mentioned is that snap is a product of canonical (a for profit company talking about an IPO for years), flathub is managed by the gnome foundation (a US registered non profit, which should provide some legal protection).

My major problem has been the documentation of the project and how top contributors are unable to accept how bad it is. Discussions about improvements and attempts at improving it at regularly shut down or impeded. Coming back to the “harsh defense of perceived territory”, it distinctly feels like existing teams are supposed to be the only ones making changes to the things they own. Contributions from “outsiders” never exit nix review hell and are nitpicked to death.

I made a one time contribution to the nix docs, I also got the impression that managing documentation could be better but it did got accepted after a few changes.

With that said there are alternative projects that provide a form of documentation to nix.

Talk about a blast for the past.

Might be worth mentioning that that is a project that maintains the source code release of descent 1+2 .

steam , wikipedia.

the distinction between big and small companies is artificial , a big company can still have a small product with low profit margins, and both big and small companies can be managed by the same mutual funds and pension funds (vanguard , blackrock, fidelity etc).

Isn’t this a lawsuit waiting to happen?

My country has non profits that lobby for citizens , I wonder if there is enough motivation in the community to set something like that for FOSS, I don’t think existing non profits (FSF, OSI) will want to deal with that kind of stuff .

verifying the submitter is a member of the project

That’s a different requirement as far as i can tell (When you do that you get the “plus” sign next to the name on the store).

the software name does not conflict with a well known name,…

It should conflict, the point is that some random dude can create a package and people could use it.

They can review and check that the URL in the manifest used to build or install the package is from upstream, but that can later be changed, it would be better to have some system where you need to whitelist URL’s i think.