Donationware: you must donate to use it. Not like regular optional donates.

  • Pantherina@feddit.de
    9·
    8 months ago

    You can literally donate 1ct. I have no idea how people can complain when developers want money for their work.

    The “Linux community” is 80% users that dont contribute, 10% “powerusers” that still dont contribute, 5% people that help with nondevelopment work (bug reporting, community support, etc.) and 5% actual developers.

    (Completely rough estimation)

    • iso@lemy.lolOP
      2·
      8 months ago

      I have no problem with “pay what you can”. I just hate “you must donate X amount to use this software”. If I need to donate, then it is not a donate. It is payment.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    3·
    8 months ago

    Escortware. You’re not paying for the software, you’re paying for the time you’re using the software.

          • Ignotum@lemmy.world
            1·
            8 months ago

            That’s why i declined a free photoshop license and some cad software license when i was a student, and instead went straight to learning Gimp and FreeCAD

            Once you know one tool it’s hard to switch

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    2·
    8 months ago

    One of my favorite programs was acting up, so I went to reinstall. Turned out this program that has been free for a decade, now wants $29 a month, to let me pirate movies. Da fuck? What a way to shit the bed, to offer the same free program but charge for it out of nowhere

    • general_kitten@sopuli.xyz
      5·
      8 months ago

      If anyone actually pays $29 a month to watch movies illegally modern streaming services have truly reached a new low

    • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
      1·
      8 months ago

      now whatever you do, don’t steal it

      also doublecheck you aren’t on a scam site or that the product hasn’t forked ;)

      • dev_null@lemmy.ml
        1·
        8 months ago

        It’s a fair deal, but the point is it’s not a donation. You can purchase pro features, and that’s great. But it’s not a donation if you get a product in return, that’s just a purchase.

      • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
        02·
        8 months ago

        It’s free software. You can charge money for distribution of free software but if the user does then he has the right to have acces to the source code forever no restrictions. And that user is free to distribute copies of the software as he wishes.

        • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          8 months ago

          You can charge money for distribution of free software

          That copy is Paidware.

          but if the user does then he has the right to have acces to the source code forever no restrictions

          No. FOSS licenses provide protections/rights over the source code to the user regardless if that user paid for it/a pre-compiled binary or not.
          Even in a scenario where the source is restricted-access FOSS the license still grants those protections without exception. Moreover a restricted-access FOSS model goes against the very nature of FOSS, even if it’s not explicitly forbidden by the license. This kind of model is typically referred to as commercial open-source software (COSS).
          This approach is essentially commercial proprietary software but they messed up by picking the wrong license.

          • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
            02·
            8 months ago

            You can change for software distribution (binaries).Directly from gpl site…:

            Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)

            Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

            Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution site? (#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee)

            Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. Under GPLv2, if you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary. If the binaries being distributed are licensed under the GPLv3, then you must offer equivalent access to the source code in the same way through the same place at no further charge.

            • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
              31·
              8 months ago

              Please speak with a lawyer.
              That specific sold binary copy is by definition paidware regardless of source code distribution as there’s a paywall preventing you from accessing that specific distribution of that specific copy.

              As for the rest :
              Directly from same gpl site.
              Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me? (#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee)

              No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program nonfree. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.

              The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.

              You can charge people a fee to get a copy from you. You can’t require people to pay you when they get a copy from someone else.

              If I distribute GPLed software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? (#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic)

              No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

              Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement? (#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA)

              No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

              If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to license-violation@fsf.org.

              If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.

              • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
                13·
                8 months ago

                That’s the same I’m saying. What you quoted just says that you can charge for distributing free software but you cannot force other holders of the software to distribute it asking for a charge.

                You as a distributor can charge for what you distribute, that’s it. And it has been done with a lot of free software, like with Linux. That’s why basically Linus changed his License from explicitly free in money to only free as in freedom.

                The thing is that free software allows to have a paywall if the distributor wants it. Which has a lot of sense. But does not allow to enforce it to other distributors.

                Richard Stallman distributed GNU tools by a price. HIS distribution of GNU tools. At the same time you can also get the GNU tools from idk Debian mirrors (for free).

                Free software isn’t free as in money. That’s the whole point. The adoption of Open Source by the “cool” companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.) has tainted the original meaning of free software.

                • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  31·
                  8 months ago

                  Did you even read my first reply?
                  It wasn’t about wether or not you can charge. It was about the protections always being granted to the user regardless if they paid the fee. A user could “steal” a copy without paying a fee and still be able to legally distribute it, you wouldn’t even be able to press charges for “theft” because the license grants rights regardless of the means it was accessed.

                  Also it’s FOSS, not “free software”, they’re not the same thing. Free software could be any software that doesn’t cost money, FOSS is Free(-dom) Open Source Software.

    • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      8 months ago

      That’s the true definition of donationware.
      If you’re being forced to “donate” any amount of money upfront to use the software, it’s no longer donationware, it’s literally just paidware. Even if the source code is available elsewhere under a FOSS license, that specific copy is by definition paidware.

  • Lele@feddit.de
    0·
    8 months ago

    There is also software that you could compile from source yourself but the binaries are locked behind a donation. Are those also donationware?

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    0·
    8 months ago

    I hear you. I think it’s just exceedingly rare. Not saying it doesn’t exist, I just think giving it a name is a little strange given how unbelievably rare it is. But, you got to start somewhere! So, I digress. I guess, here it is. 🤷‍♂️

  • Jack@slrpnk.net
    0·
    8 months ago

    Where the fuck did you get this definition from?

    If I remember correctly vim is charityware and is entirely free, I only found out about the charity part on accident.

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      0·
      8 months ago

      I think they’re referring to software that has like donate indicators/prompts in the app, or features blocked behind “donation.”

      • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        8 months ago

        donate indicators/prompts in the app

        That’s either donationware or nagware depending.

        features blocked behind “donation.”

        That’s just Freemium.