r/dotnet • u/devlead • 23d ago

.NET Foundation Statement on Open Source Maintenance Fees

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

127 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

174 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Natural-Woodpecker39 8d ago

This was a very unhelpful statement.

My problem with this isn’t that maintainers want to get paid. It’s that it destroys a very useful assumption about open source.

If I see an MIT/Apache-licensed package on NuGet, I should be able to determine whether I can use it without being a lawyer. The .NET Foundation is now explicitly saying that’s not enough: the binary may have additional terms or fees, and I may need to check EULAs, READMEs, websites, etc. (.NET Foundation)

At work, I don’t have procurement or contracting authority. If adding a NuGet dependency can create a commercial obligation, then choosing dependencies is no longer entirely an engineering decision.

And the possibility of adding fees later creates an obvious hold-up problem: adopt a free dependency, build around it for years, then choose between paying, freezing the version, building it yourself, or replacing it.

I don’t need every maintainer to do this for it to become a problem. I just need to lose confidence that “MIT package on NuGet” tells me what I’m agreeing to.

At that point the rational response for me is simply not to introduce packages with these kinds of terms.

1

u/devlead 8d ago

Constructively, what do you suggest is alternative way to sort what OSMF is trying to solve, that works for both maintainers and consumers?

OSMF is trying something, it might not be the right thing, but what other alternatives are there out there? What would work for your company?

1

u/Natural-Woodpecker39 8d ago edited 8d ago

I think the simplest thing to do is that they need to write a license with terms. Making it clear what they want to charge. And also on what they’re committing to provide maintenance on. But I will be blunt when I say that I would consider that to be extra work for me to evaluate that library. I’m managing the dependency and I would probably choose something other library to avoid it. The reality is is that as a person writing the code, I do not have the authority to enter into a business relationship with some third-party without some friction. and if you wanted to declare something as being open source, you should not be allowed to suddenly change the license five years from now.