311
[META] Are paid for, closed source projects, being advertised on this community, appropriate? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
148 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A number of brand new accounts have popped up shilling their paid for applications.

Is this within the rules? Is the community happy with this? Could mods clarify this in the rules?

Either allowing advertising, or banning it entirely.

my point is - there is a difference between an open source homegrown project that might be useful, vs closed source paid for projects from brand new accounts

some replies are misunderstanding, somehow.

I am against

brand new accounts who:

  1. first post is a brand new project
  2. project is closed source
  3. project will cost money
  4. is asking for free testing
  5. the post is literally an advertisement
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

N of one, but:

  • Paid closed source = Advertisement, ban.
  • FOSS without free self hosting = Advertisement, ban.
  • FOSS with self-hosting but some self-hosted features are paid = Still an advertisement, but MAYBE acceptable if we are being lenient. I don't like it, personally.
  • FOSS with free self-hosting and paid hosted services = Good for them, play on.

Edit: @Shadow@lemmy.ca had a comment about Tailscale, it's a prime example of the last bullet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    There is a sticky up with the currently proposed rule.

    Paid closed source or f/loss with a paywall requires active (non-advertising) participation.

    f/loss that can be hosted and used fully without a paywall (even if they offer their own cloud option, or a donation subscription, whatever) is exempt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •