Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Comparing not making any money vs making money isn't exactly what I was thinking. I'm curious how that compares with "donate to the author" schemes. I truly don't know. Do donation schemes incur the same overhead of bank accounts, taxes, etc?
If it's unclear, I'm not arguing for or against anything. I'm trying to build an understanding of the landscape.
So if it's going to be less than $100 / year, it's just waste of time even to add that donate button, and then depressed that your open source you spending bunch time on is making $100/year. It's hobby, it doesn't need to make money.
If your licensing only earns revenue after a sufficiently large use (ie, corporations, not other hobbyists or small developers), couldn't it be made so that you're never dealing with chump change annually? With a well-devised license, this never happens anyway.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
