I thought not, but just last week there was a discussion about someone asking about buying the “Pro” version of their distro, which have them access to… free open source software they could have just downloaded. Had a big (polite) argument with someone about the ethics of this
Distros (ZorinOS) are doing this crap. Shysters will always find a way to fleece people.
I personally don’t mind at all if open source projects want to sell a “pro” version for businesses, as long as it’s still open source. Selling priority troubleshooting and dev attention to issues to businesses seems like one of the less offensive ways to fund open source projects in a capitalist society, imo
Yes! I completely agree. The distinction is, to me, utterly important: they aren’t selling the software, they’re selling the service. Hell, if they want to sell the option to get your bugs fixed on demand, great! That’s enormously different than taking millions of developer hours spent creating OSS, sticking a label and name on it, and then reselling it as if you made any real contribution to the OSS community.
Isn’t this basically how Fedora and RHEL are? RHEL is paid for giving you support, updates, etc. While Fedora is FOSS. You just install it and they don’t care what you do with it.
That’s pretty much it, right? ZorinOS Pro gives you some more desktop layouts, more wallpapers, and what they call “Zorin Installation Support service”. Basically like buying a hat in a free game.
But the “Advanced productivity tools” one is a bit misleading, apparently it’s stuff anyone can install from the store it just pre-installs some unnamed apps for you.
I don’t mind selling some cosmetic stuff to fund development, the app thing is a bit shady though.
Agree. I wouldn’t even mind it if they were more open about what they’re actually doing, as picking a well working set of apps from the sea open-source apps can have value.
That said, if you read through that site it feels like they want to appear like it’s them who created all that software.
I’ve never bought a distro. I’ve paid someone for the CD and shipping, way back before ISOs and internet speeds at home made downloading it practical. But never have I “bought” for Linux. Every CD I got I could legally copy and give away; or charge for the service.
With few exceptions, what you were paying for the media, the effort of burning and shipping, and shipping. Even with companies like Redhat, what you paid for with Enterprise was service and support, not the software.
I seem to be having this argument frequently lately. Taking someone else’s work, that they gave you for free, putting your own logo on it and then selling it to people is one of the most unethical things that isn’t illegal that I can think of. Selling support services is entirely fair. Selling compute, bandwidth, and space, entirely ethical. But profiting off other’s generosity? How do you justify that? Even if you’re not a socialist or communist, taking a painting someone gave away and then turning around and selling it is disgusting and amoral. You’ve added no value; you’re purely profiting on someone else’s work.
Packaging the software in a distro with an installer and a custom DE adds a lot of value.
I’m not familiar with Zorin specifically, but freely distributing source code and charging for binaries was one of the earliest monetization strategies for GPL code.
Yet, when Microsoft, Apple and every other proprietary software house do it with permissively licensed code, I don’t see anybody complaining.
The declaration of intent by the author is the license. If they don’t want commercial redistribution of their work, do like Futo. Otherwise we’ll all start taking crazy pills and demand people adhere to an imagined restriction that isn’t written anywhere.
I bought SUSE Linux once upon a time. It was a physical CD and the packaging that I paid for. Maybe a little support was bundled, probably not. That was a time when the internet was slow for most and not an option for others, wifi wasn’t ubiquitous (and if it existed, good luck getting the proper drivers loaded without internet), live distributions weren’t really a thing yet, booting from usb was finicky and unreliable, and the install CDs would have the entire OS and basically all the software you could want to install bundled. These would have been the days before the fall of Napster and the rise in other “Linux ISO sharing tools”. Ubuntu would even mail you like a half dozen physical CDs and some stickers just for asking and promising to share them in your community.
There’s nothing wrong with buying the physical things or paying for support. That’s not what this meme is showing though.
No issue with their actual paid service levels; it costs them to run those, and they’re providing value. Most corporations won’t use software unless they have a telephone number to call when it breaks, and service level guarantees. That’s worth paying for; it’s a service. But the fact that they’re charging for software that includes some that I wrote, and which RHEL got for free, and for which I receive no kickbacks, is inexcusable.
Pop-up ads are loathsome. It’s nagware. We need to bring back that term, because that’s exactly what we used to call this shit, and that’s exactly what it is.
I thought not, but just last week there was a discussion about someone asking about buying the “Pro” version of their distro, which have them access to… free open source software they could have just downloaded. Had a big (polite) argument with someone about the ethics of this
Distros (ZorinOS) are doing this crap. Shysters will always find a way to fleece people.
I personally don’t mind at all if open source projects want to sell a “pro” version for businesses, as long as it’s still open source. Selling priority troubleshooting and dev attention to issues to businesses seems like one of the less offensive ways to fund open source projects in a capitalist society, imo
Yes! I completely agree. The distinction is, to me, utterly important: they aren’t selling the software, they’re selling the service. Hell, if they want to sell the option to get your bugs fixed on demand, great! That’s enormously different than taking millions of developer hours spent creating OSS, sticking a label and name on it, and then reselling it as if you made any real contribution to the OSS community.
Isn’t this basically how Fedora and RHEL are? RHEL is paid for giving you support, updates, etc. While Fedora is FOSS. You just install it and they don’t care what you do with it.
I also don’t mind if they are “selling” nothing, or just a supporter icon. As long as they are transparent that that is all you are getting.
That’s pretty much it, right? ZorinOS Pro gives you some more desktop layouts, more wallpapers, and what they call “Zorin Installation Support service”. Basically like buying a hat in a free game.
But the “Advanced productivity tools” one is a bit misleading, apparently it’s stuff anyone can install from the store it just pre-installs some unnamed apps for you.
I don’t mind selling some cosmetic stuff to fund development, the app thing is a bit shady though.
Agree. I wouldn’t even mind it if they were more open about what they’re actually doing, as picking a well working set of apps from the sea open-source apps can have value.
That said, if you read through that site it feels like they want to appear like it’s them who created all that software.
Or for server software it can be funded with support contracts.
Dude, I remember a time where buying your distro was the default behavior. There’s nothing shady about it.
I’ve never bought a distro. I’ve paid someone for the CD and shipping, way back before ISOs and internet speeds at home made downloading it practical. But never have I “bought” for Linux. Every CD I got I could legally copy and give away; or charge for the service.
With few exceptions, what you were paying for the media, the effort of burning and shipping, and shipping. Even with companies like Redhat, what you paid for with Enterprise was service and support, not the software.
I seem to be having this argument frequently lately. Taking someone else’s work, that they gave you for free, putting your own logo on it and then selling it to people is one of the most unethical things that isn’t illegal that I can think of. Selling support services is entirely fair. Selling compute, bandwidth, and space, entirely ethical. But profiting off other’s generosity? How do you justify that? Even if you’re not a socialist or communist, taking a painting someone gave away and then turning around and selling it is disgusting and amoral. You’ve added no value; you’re purely profiting on someone else’s work.
Packaging the software in a distro with an installer and a custom DE adds a lot of value.
I’m not familiar with Zorin specifically, but freely distributing source code and charging for binaries was one of the earliest monetization strategies for GPL code.
Yeah… for the authors. That’s fine. You downloading my FOSS, packaging it and selling it is slimy carpet-baggery.
Yet, when Microsoft, Apple and every other proprietary software house do it with permissively licensed code, I don’t see anybody complaining.
The declaration of intent by the author is the license. If they don’t want commercial redistribution of their work, do like Futo. Otherwise we’ll all start taking crazy pills and demand people adhere to an imagined restriction that isn’t written anywhere.
I bought SUSE Linux once upon a time. It was a physical CD and the packaging that I paid for. Maybe a little support was bundled, probably not. That was a time when the internet was slow for most and not an option for others, wifi wasn’t ubiquitous (and if it existed, good luck getting the proper drivers loaded without internet), live distributions weren’t really a thing yet, booting from usb was finicky and unreliable, and the install CDs would have the entire OS and basically all the software you could want to install bundled. These would have been the days before the fall of Napster and the rise in other “Linux ISO sharing tools”. Ubuntu would even mail you like a half dozen physical CDs and some stickers just for asking and promising to share them in your community.
There’s nothing wrong with buying the physical things or paying for support. That’s not what this meme is showing though.
I was discussing this, not the meme.
I mean, that’s kinda like RHEL if you pay for the “self-service” subscription?
Yes, and I have the same opinion about Redhat.
No issue with their actual paid service levels; it costs them to run those, and they’re providing value. Most corporations won’t use software unless they have a telephone number to call when it breaks, and service level guarantees. That’s worth paying for; it’s a service. But the fact that they’re charging for software that includes some that I wrote, and which RHEL got for free, and for which I receive no kickbacks, is inexcusable.
But even Red Hat offers that subscription for free for up to 16 machines
Well, that’s disappointing to learn.
I have gotten popup ads for Ubuntu Pro on stock Ubuntu install.
The difference is that Ubuntu Pro is free, and the ads are only 1 line in the terminal
Pop-up ads are loathsome. It’s nagware. We need to bring back that term, because that’s exactly what we used to call this shit, and that’s exactly what it is.
There is a popup ad when you first install the update that introduces this feature.