The call for MIT / Apache 2.0 licensing at the end of the post was surprising, given the issues that the author outlined.
Grafana and Minio have both moved to AGPL / dual licensing from permissive licenses to stimulate licensing sales and revenue. As the maintainer of OpenFaaS, it's been a struggle to correct the balance of corporations freeloading [0] vs. contributing code or finances.
GitHub Sponsors has also given very mixed results [1]
In the same week we saw the maintainer of a popular OSS work almost throw in the towel [2]
After 5 years, we're starting to see customer interest in paying for OpenFaaS - but only by holding new features and enhancements back i.e. Open Core.
There are still problems with this approach, and paying customers end up funding all the R&D required for the free users - amongst other things like competition from hobbyist users who covet features that are more appropriate in production than on your Raspberry Pi cluster.
Grafana and Minio have both moved to AGPL / dual licensing from permissive licenses to stimulate licensing sales and revenue. As the maintainer of OpenFaaS, it's been a struggle to correct the balance of corporations freeloading [0] vs. contributing code or finances.
GitHub Sponsors has also given very mixed results [1]
In the same week we saw the maintainer of a popular OSS work almost throw in the towel [2]
After 5 years, we're starting to see customer interest in paying for OpenFaaS - but only by holding new features and enhancements back i.e. Open Core.
There are still problems with this approach, and paying customers end up funding all the R&D required for the free users - amongst other things like competition from hobbyist users who covet features that are more appropriate in production than on your Raspberry Pi cluster.
[0] https://github.com/openfaas/faas/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md [1] https://twitter.com/alexellisuk/status/1479870599853924352?s... [2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/13/opensource_apacheplc4...