• Franklin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wouldn’t sweat it too much, The fact that someone could make money on this gets in the way of their narrative.

        I don’t really mind that sync is closed source you should be able to have the freedom to use whatever you want and all it is is more choice but I’ll be damned if I’m going to use it.

      • blunderworld@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Like who? Making an actual living I mean, not just collecting small donations to ‘buy them a coffee’ or whatever.

        Not saying you’re wrong, but some examples would be welcome.

        Edit: Down voting me for asking a question, lol. Way to demonstrate your dedication to that free and open philosophy you apparently advocate for, folks.

        • newIdentity@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Blender, Wikipedia, Linux, RedHat and even the project you’re using right now: Lemmy

          There actually are a lot of people making a living out of making open source projects

          • blunderworld@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ill admit im not very familiar with blender, linux, or redhat, so ill look into those – thank you.

            My understanding is that nobody owns lemmy, rather people own the instances that make up lemmy. Which is definitely in the spirit of FOSS, but based on my understanding (happy to be proven wrong) I dont think its accurate to say the creators of Lemmy are making a living from it. You can donate to the admins of the instances you use, I suppose.

            Likewise, isn’t the main source of income for Wikipedia donations? They ask me for one every time I’m on the site.

            So other than semantics, what’s really the difference in making a donation to a service like Wikipedia, and paying for Sync? You can think of paying to remove ads as a donation if that helps, but the fact remains that lemmy is already available for free, and is much smaller than organizations like Wikipedia or Linux. Dude has got to eat.

            • newIdentity@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nope. The devs make a living out of it. They work on Lemmy full time. They are sponsored by NLnet and are paid for every feature they implement

            • newIdentity@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Compleatly forgot to answer your other quesntion:

              Yes the main income is donations. The difference is that you don’t need to pay if you can’t afford it and people who donate are generally paying more on average. The huge difference is that everyone has access to everything without paying.

              Imagine what would happen if you would have to pay to use Wikipedia: nobody would use it. The content is made by users and if they would have made it a paid encyclopedia it wouldn’t have any users.

              • ѕєχυαℓ ρσℓутσρє@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Also, I gladly pay for subscriptions for services that actually cost money to run in the developer’s side.

                But that’s not the case. It shows content from a free service. I get it that developers need to get paid, but if they don’t have any recurring expenditure, it should be based on donations.

              • blunderworld@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You don’t need to pay for Sync if you can’t afford it either, though. A free version exists, the only noteworthy difference is that it shows ads. To your point, there are technically a few gated features behind the Ultra subscription, but these are niche inclusions that 99% of people probably wouldn’t use even if they were included for free. I think of them more as an added bonus for supporting the dev.

        • itsJoelle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          See: RedHat devs and all the FOSS orgs that actually pay devs to work on their shit.

          Google, Meta, and AMD have people on their to team they pay for development on FOSS projects because their operations rely upon them, so they have a vested interest in maintaining them.

          • blunderworld@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So the best solution to make a living as a FOSS developer is to… Work for some giant tech monopoly who engages in sketchy consumer practices on a regular basis?

            AFAIK Sync was created by a single person, so I doubt he’s getting paid by anyone other than fans of the app and ad revenue. I’ll look into RedHat though, I appreciate you taking the time to provide an actual example.

            • itsJoelle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Not a problem. Also FOSS orgs pay their devs as well. Off the top of my head OS developers with a large userbase often pay their devs through donations to foundations that fund the project. Often donors are companies as well, but it gives a developer the option to get paid without working for a massive company.

              (I suppose indirectly they do, but that’s a whole different ball of wax)

          • ech0@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            He means provide an example of a single indie Dev doing it. You’re being obtuse because you know that there’s no one.

            • itsJoelle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t understand. I reread back to the top comment and went down the chain. They made a rhetorical question about how devs of software being paid. Someone clarified the definition of Foss. Then there was a an inquiry about how someone could make a living with FOSS software and another commenter claiming millions do it (which a majority are these exact devs I pointed out).

              I simply gave the list, that’s all.

        • stappern@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Random example,check the Linux maintainers emails.

          They are all @samsung.com @google.com @redhat.com @facebook.com

          All these people are making bank working on FOSS,corporations will have dedicated people to work on many projects. Smaller companies do the same