I made up the term. The idea is that non-commercial users get a BSD 2-clause license but commercial users pay small fee for a license.
For reference, I grew up poor, and was making barely a living wage a year before I started contributing to OSS.
-
-
So I don't think this analysis is quite correct. OSS can help uplift some people (but not all people) through career advancement.
-
The economic value in career advancement, recruitment, shared maintenance and ecosystem network effects are missing from 0L analysis imo.
-
Restrictive licenses, especially ones that introduce mandatory $ costs, sharply reduce the network effects of ecosystems.
-
Who's going to depend on mkdirp if users of your software need to pay a license to mkdirp (especially given the ease of reimplementing)
-
Why does anyone find, install, and use mkdirp, given the ease of reimplementing? What if the price is $5, and you're already licensing a dozen other packages in one transaction?
-
It's a dependency of another package.
-
Why did the author of the depending package bother to find, install, and use mkdirp, given the ease of reimplementing?
-
Because the network effects of this kind of decentralizing are massive and make ecosystems robust. Many people don't want to go back.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.