Bruh. This is why I hate all the open source license that are not GPL. Are not free software. I am not bother to pay for it. But I am bother to not see the code :(

[–] MadhuGururajan@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Only to a certain extent.

The problem is that a lot of software is very complex and requires full-time development/maintenance. It's simply not possible to work on stuff for free unless this is just a hobby and you can sustain yourself with a main job.

The main thing I have a problem with this instance is the following sequence of events

The developer licensed it as LGPL.
They did not accept ANY contributions to the code.
The project became popular enough for people to post about in the fediverse (quite popular then, I guess)
They got donations for their work, but apparently it was not enough.
They removed the project from being accessible and moved to a paid only model.

This tells me:

Their intention all along was to abuse FOSS community for popularity, traction, clout and free testing by people who are also doing this stuff in their free time.
They got donations, but for whatever reason it was not enough for them. => Were they expecting to make retirement level income from their project which is in a crowded segment?

[–] Vast_Emptiness@programming.dev 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah if you really care about FOSS you should use GPL and not MIT BDS and a multiple license. Because at the end of the day the code can became close source in just a second. That is the point of GPL and the Foss. I am willing to pay with money because I can. But I am not willing to pay with trust.

[–] thtroyer@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago

What? The GPL would have offered no more protection for this exact scenario than the LGPL (or any other license for that matter).