People actually pay for open source software too.

Take a look at Ardour for an example. Red Hat too.

Indeed, however stuff like CentOS prove how people go out of their way to avoid paying, and how they get pissed off when that option goes away.

I should also note that nowadays Red-Hat belongs to IBM, so there are other forms of funding beyond support contracts for Red-Hat enterprise.

CentOS was popular, but Red Hat still made billions of dollars in revenue.

Not enough, hence why it was acquired and eventually killed, regardless of how Red-Hat might justify their decision.

Care to explain which was killed? Neither centos nor redhat.

CentOS, have you missed the news?

Yeah there is CentOS Stream now, but that isn't what freeloaders want.

> CentOS, have you missed the news?

Alternatives popped up literally days after the annoumcement of centos stream. We got back to original point. If you know the history of rhel and its clones, you surely know they used to be tenth of projects similar to centos, some much more active/reactive. The redhat funding of centos as a perfect rhel clone is more a parenthesis in history than anything.

So in the end freeloaders still get exactly what they want.

> Yeah there is CentOS Stream now, but that isn't what freeloaders want.

I would say that isn't what some freeloaders think they want. All the feedback I get from people deciding to stick to centos stream and trying it out before a potential switch to something else has bern mostly the same: a lot of fuss for nothing, their life hasn't changed and centos is still meeting their needs.

I don't think "force" is the right word here. More that it's an offer companies can make and customers can choose. Free software and free data are not always a concern of users, lock-in might not be the best choice long-term, but they are not being forced in any way afaik. (edit: initially I mean, after the lock-in there is force of course.)

However, as has been a point of discussion here for the last several years, the SaaS services themselves are often as much "leeches" as the users when it comes to open source.

Might happen, however my point was about the SaaS that are from the authors themselves.

Ah, in the case of developer originated SaaS, then sure, doing a SaaS offering rather than donationware might lead to more income for the developer, but I don't think that free software is alone in this - plenty of proprietary software that would once have had fixed boxed releases is now subscription or SaaS based too.

Recurring income is a stronger business model, nobody's denying that, but that doesn't mean it's an improvement for the user or that those producing software with a goal of financial gain would have just released standalone open source software if only free software licenses had been more sympathetic to their needs. Rather, I think if SaaS did not exist, if their first goal is revenue, many of these groups would have just released straight up proprietary software.

When users try to make a living as developers, income becomes something to worry about.

Why should people pay for FOSS? Isn't entire point it being free, developed for personal use and shared?

If people don't pay for FOSS, how do you expect developers who develop FOSS to feed their families?

The "free" in "Free and Open Source Software" is free as in speech, not free as in beer. We'd like to think that decision to charge or not charge for the product is orthogonal to the decision to make the source code available. In practice there is some interrelation.

But FOSS was never "you can't charge for it."

Do it as hobby in their free time? Maybe work in some other field producing actual physical things during day and then in evenings spend hour or two tinkering with free software? Just like any hobbying artist?

Like a street performer trying to make it to the end of the month rather.