The problem is when any of the features the enterprise wants to / can buy is closed source and not available on the same terms as the rest of the project.
I'm not wanting to insult you here, so please read in that light. I'm not trying to be the dick here.
>> The problem
Problem to whom? Not the customer (the one paying the bills), not the developer (the one getting paid) but by "the rest" - the ones consuming but not contributing.
>> closed source
Unfortunately the term "open source" encompasses a group of freedoms - the lack of any of them leads us to the term "closed source". For some projects the freedom "removed" is the right to _distribute_ the proprietary source. In other words the source might be "open" in the sense that the customer has it, but it might be "closed" in the sense that they can't distribute it.
I'd suggest that the freedom-lost in the "can't distribute" model is a good compromise (developers wanting to get paid.) I'm less favourable to a "binary blob" model. Clearly in the abstract projects could go either way.
>> not available on the same terms
ie - for free. I hear you, but I feel like developers have a right to take their project in a paid direction if they want to. The demand that they continue the project forever for no return seems, well, unfair.
> ...but by "the rest" - the ones consuming but not contributing.
"contributing", when it relates to F/LOSS software, includes non-monetary activities, which you seem to be ignoring. Nevermind the fact that the so-called consumers are the whole reason why Gitea is in the position it is today. Without adoption, it would be a bunch of people making commits on an unknown codebase. Characterizing users as moochers is bad form, amd will not end well for Gitea, IMO.
> I feel like developers have a right to take their project in a paid direction if they want to.
The other side of the libre software coin is that the users have the right to fork the project and take it in a community-driven, non-profit direction if they want to.
>> includes non-monetary activities, which you seem to be ignoring.
sure. Except those non-monetary activities don't pay the bills. I suppose I kinda fell like they have value, but on the other hand the business has to pay bills and salaries first. If that isn't done then the non-monetary value is, well, meaningless.
And of course, if there are specific users who are contributing materially with code etc then nothing stops them from getting a gratis enterprise license.
I think it's also worth noting that the "community" consists of two groups - those that are contributing to the project, and, well (your word) the moochers. Yes, even quiet users have some "value" - but it's really tiny. The ones that are contributing code and so on, obviously they have real value.
I certainly don't want to minimise the value of active contributers, but at the same time I don't want to over-value the contribution of "n anonymous users". Yes, there's a business model built on acquiring some huge number of users, then selling them on to some big corporate (like GitHub did), but I'm no sure that's in play here.
>> Nevermind the fact that the so-called consumers are the whole reason why Gitea is in the position it is today.
I'm not sure they are so-called - they clearly are consumers. And that's great for a small fledgling company starting out. But there comes a point where the bottom line has to be fed, and they aren't the ones doing the feeding.
This is obviously not a new thing that Gitea invented, we've all seen this play out a million times with startups. It's all free all the time until the money runs out. Then something has to change to make it sustainable.
>> The other side of the libre software coin is that the users have the right to fork the project and take it in a community-driven, non-profit direction if they want to.
Of course yes. If there are some group of developers who want to work on features, they are of course most welcome to do so. That is quite literally the whole point of an Open Source license. But you say this like it's a bad thing? Like it would somehow hurt Gitea if this happened. I'm not sure that's the case. (you'd just have a new set of developers with the same financial problems, and Gitea would have gobbled up some Enterprise mind-share in the meantime.)
> Except those non-monetary activities don't pay the bills.
That is why the vast majority of free or open source projects are not businesses.
> And of course, if there are specific users who are contributing materially with code etc then nothing stops them from getting a gratis enterprise license.
This is one way to kill an open source project that is new to me!
> I'm not sure they are so-called - they clearly are consumers
They do more than that (in a power-law way): the evangelize, translate docs, file bug reports, donate, provide free support online, among other activities. Reducing a community to mere consumers is self-defeating.
> you'd just have a new set of developers with the same financial problems, and Gitea would have gobbled up some Enterprise mind-share in the meantime.
Ah, I see we have a fundamental philosophical difference. I don't believe that all open source projects have to be profitable enterprises - or even a full-time job for single maintainer. A lot - I dare say most - successful projects are volunteer-driven.
The world, in my opinion (we all are being opinionated rather than right or wrong, here).
Like [almost?] everyone, I have ideas about what I think would constitute a better world. They include, within the realm of IT, a pretty much "IP" and DRM free society, open general purpose computing for all, and more truly free [as in freedom] and open source software.
I think that open core and enterprise service based models and their ilk make that world less likely. I'm not interested in finding ways to make more "silicon valley" companies profitable if they do so by making a world I don't like.
