Paying for Open Source

>>60716518
No.
Get out.

Aseprite is the first to come to mind. $15 to buy but source code is on github.
I think Ardour falls under this.

Just make the source code fuckin unreadable and have a shitload of deprecated dependencies etc. so nobody can actually build it from source and they need to buy it from you instead

>>60716606
Aseprite is nonfree

Every program from the 70s

>>60716706
That does not respect freedom 1.

>>60716775
Sure it does. You can still study and modify the code as you wish. Just because it's nearly impossible to read doesn't mean it's actually impossible. It's just a mess.

If you thought I mean encryption or something then you were mistaken

>>60716518
You could write it but you'd probably do better asking for donations

>>60716805
If you ask Stallman,he will say that obfuscated code is a way to try to discourage people from reading the source code. If you ask him, he'll confirm what I just said.

>>60717123
And mandating payment isn't discouragement?
You're probably right though, but whatever. Discouragement isn't outright blockage, so whatever.

It could be like an academic thing: you present the source code for anyone to look at and study, but you don't have permission to compile it or use it unless you pay.

>>60716518
>paying for software

I contribute with bug fixes and I donate whenever I can.

>>60716518
WTFPL is the best license
http://www.wtfpl.net/

>>60716518
Just use GpLv4 or wtfpl

>t. AT&T UNIX
>t. Microsoft Windows if you're a major multinational or great power government

>>60716706
I paid for synergy a few months ago for exactly that reason. The build process for Windows requires some pretty old versions of visual studio (like 2008 I think? maybe others as well) that microsoft doesn't even offer any longer.
In the end it wasn't worth my time to find and download the compilers then set up dependencies when I could pay $30 or whatever it costs and just download the fucking thing.

There are some iOS and Android apps that have their source code up on Github, but you have to pay to get them on the App/Play store.

>>60716518
yea, just use/write a license that says exactly that
it will get pirated, but so does everything else
the people who will pay for it are the same ones who would pay for it even if it wasn't open source, hell, there could be different people who'd buy it just because it's also open source and they can modify it

even the GPL doesn't forbid charging for it
just do what red hat does, provide sources but no binaries (also valid with the GPL)
most people don't care to compile things themselves, and unofficial binaries are off-putting to a lot of people as well

>>60716518
None of the GPL licenses have prevented you from charging for software.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

The idea that free software is necessarily free as in beer as well is a falsehood.

Whether or not people want to pay you or not is a different manner.

>>60716518
I think xchat used to have a paid compiled version for Windows and a free compiled version and source code for Linux

AGPL

>>60716518
What makes you think people won't pirate it if it's even remotely useful?

>>60716518
Kinda, there are fuckers selling HTML5 templates, with publically accessible demos. It makes you thing, if webdevs are really than fucking retarted to makes this profitable. I mean, what's exactly stopping me from just download the demo (which my browser is doing anyway)?

>>60716518
GPLv3, surprisingly

ardour

>>60716518
Yes.
All Rights Reserved, Anon 2017
Showing someone the source code doesn't grant usage rights.

>>60724725
They usually sell you the updates
also if the thing has a php back end you can't really just download it

doom

>>60716518
You sell the support, not the software. Make tech support paid / subscription based, like Red Hat. No licence, no patches.

>>60726677
this

>>60716518
> have to pay to use it
Not like "have to pay", many companies just provide support or write their own code and provide a source code for free. If you don't know how to compile/install/run the software, pay for it.

Look at unreal engine 4. Making something open source doesn't mean you loose copyright. If the software is mainly for professional use it's no problem.

>>60716735
>Aseprite
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/ASEPRITE

>>60726677
Basically, blackmail.

>>60726969
is UE4 open source?

>>60727448
how?
the unsupported sources will be clearly labelled as being without warranty, like every other foss program
you know what you're getting into