k9salpha vs unfairness

[schollii]

I am unbelievably grateful that there are people who are able willing and capable of creating and maintaining such a great tool, thank you! I understand that maintaining k9s requires work, so it makes sense that you would provide a k9sAlpha with added capabilities for those who pay. Couple of things:

1. Could you target COTS licensing at for-profits and governments only (ie not startups, individuals, open-source authors, non-profits, or education institutions), moreover only those that have more than a certain number of k9s users (say 3)?

2. You should remove the statement in the release notes of 0.24.2 about unfairness and having to be paid by users, because it sends the wrong message and really you don't need to give any reason: you want to offer additional features that go beyond what the average user would need, so those will have a price to be paid by those who can afford it. On a more philosophical note:

   In the open source community, contributions can be indirect; like eg maybe you create A which is used by person/business B which creates C which allows person/business D to create E... which you use! This is the amazing beauty of open-source. I don't get a cent for the time I put contributing to github or stackoverflow or medium, BUT there is no doubt that I'm getting indirect money in that I get to use other open source and knowhow for free, and many services I use would be more expensive if it were not for open-source.

   The thinking that has allowed so much open source to be out there, and to power so many things you rely on without knowing, is "If you use A for free then I hope you are somehow contributing indirectly to the open-source community so I get savings other ways". Just think of Linux. Would the open source movement have started if everyone had to pay for exactly what they use?

   This does not affect the reality that you need to get some income for your time; we all have to pay the rent/mortgage and/or infrastructure. But don't underestimate how much you get for free without realising, because businesses can provide lower cost services because they use open-source, and that increases the income you have available. It is really important to keep that in mind IMO.

   So don't get me wrong k9sAlpha makes sense; you just want to be positive about the reason.

[derailed]

@schollii Thank you for voicing your opinion and for your kind words! I am grateful for this thread as you've raised pertinent issues. I do share your thoughts (to some extent) and understand your point of view.

1. Yes! We will offer free licenses for folks in those situations.

2. Indeed! Thanks for pointing this out! 2.5 years and thousands of hours on a project and looking at the stats will do that to you ;( I do agree with the scenario you so brilliantly discussed. I do however feel that OSS by individual contributors is broken. If we have indeed reached the tipping point in OSS utopia and raised the necessary awareness nothing else would need to be said.

[jeanfrancoislarente]

very well said @schollii