• somedev@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    Probably better to think of spending their money on an open ecosystem, instead of just using something for “free”. If software products have sufficient funding they can better improve the products and can continue to exist - without some form of monetisation most wouldn’t still be around.

    • pulido@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      I believe it’s a chicken and an egg problem.

      If free software projects had more users, those users would improve the software further with donations, patches, and bug reports.

      • msage@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Wow, do I have some stories for you.

        But in short, there’s a lot of FOSS software that people use every day without knowing about it.

        And it gets no funding, because why it should.

        Companies making 9+ figures have issues sending even a $1000 to an open project that they depend heavily on.

        But Microsoft/Oracle/VMWare/Google licenses? That money just shoots out like from a cannon.

        Even if those products are not 100% needed and can be replaced.

      • somedev@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        I think both can be true. I just mean if we’re talking about a company paying for Microsoft Office vs LibreOffice.

      • PushButton@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        No.

        There is enough LibreOffice users to realize that the curve of the donations over users isn’t proportional.

        When was the last time you donated?

        Exactly.