I love OSS but I don't like the idea that big enterprises use it freely without any consequences or support. Github kind of messed OSS as a whole. By giving people the choice of donating, of course people won't donate if they already have the source code. In my opinion OSS is great but it shouldn't mean free of cost. I think there should be a site like github but crossover with Patreon, you want to use my software and see the source code fine but pay first.
Who should receive this payment? The author of the first commit? Split somehow to many contributors? If so, split how and by what? This model raises a lot of questions and, in my opinion, kills the best part of open source - collaboration.
If companies are using your software to make money, why would you not want to get paid? Open source doesn't necessarily means free of cost, collaboration can still occur with a paid repo.
I don't have the answers you're looking for, but millions of people work their butt on OSS on github without any pay while big corporations rip the benefits. This model has many flaws. We pay for anything else why should software be different?
I don't deny it. I just feel that your comment suggests that it's super-easy: if you use the software, the author should get paid. But it's not easy. Because who is the author?
Right, obviously some type of model is needed. You'll want to reward everyone by using some ratio, commits, LOC, how many issues they resolved, etc. Anything is easy if we put our minds to it, I feel like no one has cared enough about this issue. Github just kind of patched it with the donation button but honestly how many people donate if they already have the source code?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I love OSS but I don't like the idea that big enterprises use it freely without any consequences or support. Github kind of messed OSS as a whole. By giving people the choice of donating, of course people won't donate if they already have the source code. In my opinion OSS is great but it shouldn't mean free of cost. I think there should be a site like github but crossover with Patreon, you want to use my software and see the source code fine but pay first.
Who should receive this payment? The author of the first commit? Split somehow to many contributors? If so, split how and by what? This model raises a lot of questions and, in my opinion, kills the best part of open source - collaboration.
If companies are using your software to make money, why would you not want to get paid? Open source doesn't necessarily means free of cost, collaboration can still occur with a paid repo.
I don't have the answers you're looking for, but millions of people work their butt on OSS on github without any pay while big corporations rip the benefits. This model has many flaws. We pay for anything else why should software be different?
I don't deny it. I just feel that your comment suggests that it's super-easy: if you use the software, the author should get paid. But it's not easy. Because who is the author?
Right, obviously some type of model is needed. You'll want to reward everyone by using some ratio, commits, LOC, how many issues they resolved, etc. Anything is easy if we put our minds to it, I feel like no one has cared enough about this issue. Github just kind of patched it with the donation button but honestly how many people donate if they already have the source code?