A fundamental flaw in the thinking of trying to get an open source project funded/monetized is assuming the people who use it can make the decision to give money (in a subscription model).
Patreon and the likes do not work for companies.
They people who decide to use a certain open source project at work do not have the decision power to make monetairy donations.
I do not really have the solution for this problem.
Maybe the concept of Tidelift is a good one.
Gone are the times where businessed could simply donate resources like servers, as there are plenty of companies offering this for free for open source projects.
I thought that was kinda the point made in this post. That you should offer a commercial license so that it matches the way businesses already expense things.
My employer already pays for various software licenses (including libraries like GSAP), so this kind of license would fit the current model. Meanwhile there's no way I could expense Patreon.
I've expensed plenty of software and subscriptions at work before! Things like Dash and irccloud have been critical to my work, and I've found that going through expense processes is definitely possible.
But I know it's not possible for everyone, and that's why I wrote the section on additional licensing, so that more corporate-friendly licensing models can be used as necessary. The patronage model is meant to be a baseline, not a complete story.
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.
A fundamental flaw in the thinking of trying to get an open source project funded/monetized is assuming the people who use it can make the decision to give money (in a subscription model).
Patreon and the likes do not work for companies.
They people who decide to use a certain open source project at work do not have the decision power to make monetairy donations.
I do not really have the solution for this problem.
Maybe the concept of Tidelift is a good one.
Gone are the times where businessed could simply donate resources like servers, as there are plenty of companies offering this for free for open source projects.
I thought that was kinda the point made in this post. That you should offer a commercial license so that it matches the way businesses already expense things.
My employer already pays for various software licenses (including libraries like GSAP), so this kind of license would fit the current model. Meanwhile there's no way I could expense Patreon.
I've expensed plenty of software and subscriptions at work before! Things like Dash and irccloud have been critical to my work, and I've found that going through expense processes is definitely possible.
But I know it's not possible for everyone, and that's why I wrote the section on additional licensing, so that more corporate-friendly licensing models can be used as necessary. The patronage model is meant to be a baseline, not a complete story.