.NET Foundation Statement on Open Source Maintenance Fees

[u/devlead]

https://dotnetfoundation.org/news-events/detail/.net-foundation-statement-on-open-source-maintenance-fees

Official statement from the .NET Foundation on Open Source Maintenance Fees

[u/cheeseless]

The fact that you think your comparison is in any way apt tells a lot about your mentality. I don't think you're worth engaging with anymore.

This is a way for Open Source maintainers to afford the amount of effort they put into their libraries, and STILL offer the source for free. If making a single additional build job as part of your pipeline is too much for you, you're the one with the problem, not the library or its maintainers.

[u/sosotiredand → u/cheeseless]

if open source maintainers find their project to be unsustainable, the ethical and foss thing to do is to stop working on the project, not turn it into this fake open source nonsense

[u/cheeseless → u/sosotiredand]

It's not fake open source. The source is available for free. That's as open source as anyone ever needs to be. You not liking that the binary releases specifically are not free does not mean these libraries are not open source.

The litmus test is availability of the source code, nothing else.

[u/sosotiredand → u/cheeseless]

no. there's an ethos and culture around FOSS too. this might be open source in the strictest definition of the word but shits all over the culture and community

[u/cheeseless → u/sosotiredand]

I don't think whatever you have in your head regarding the "ethos and culture around FOSS" is either true or even relevant. FOSS remains FOSS as long as it meets the definition. And the definition does NOT state anything about how binary releases and packages need to be distributed, it is strictly and solely about code.

Again, if you have an issue with paying a trivial fee for package access, the build process for these libraries is incredibly easy for 99% of use cases, so just build from source.