79
Periphery as open source project is ended.
(periphery.pro)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
79 points (98.8% liked)
Programming
28115 readers
490 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It is pretty standard, but the narrative is wrong. In reality it's more like this:
Build a little tool for yourself. It's small, it's simple. Someone else sees it and likes it, so you open-source it. People start using it, and it feels good. The hobby project starts consuming more and more time.
Companies start using it. Bug reports and feature requests pile up. Users who see themselves as customers without ever having paid a cent for it start to demand bugfixes and features. Toxic, entitled people kill the mood and the hobby project seriously isn't fun anymore.
Nobody contributes or donates, they just demand.
So now you got a choice: drop your hobby project or go professional.
What you are seeing in the OP or with Thunder REST is the second option: People going professional. Cause that means money is coming in, the main dev can quit their day job and maybe even hire some extra staff to deal with the workload and with pesky entitled users.
So to you now, breadsmasher: You seem to think that you are entitled to free updates for Thundar REST. I guess you contributed significant amounts of code to it or donated significant amounts of money to it?
You did do that, right?
You aren't just demanding other people to work for free for you, right?
Because if you did that, that would be seriously shitty of you. But I'm sure you aren't that kind of person, are you?
way to misinterpret my comment.
im not gonna debate with you on whether a license bait and swap is a good/ethical/appropriate idea. If you enjoy bait and swaps, thats your prerogative
Without looking at the history all I can say your interpratation is possible. However, I reject the idea it's ""professional"" to close source a once open source project. I can certainly understand a simple project becoming untenable due to popularity and sympathize the need to make money but failing to respect user's software freedom points closer to their suggested motives.
Professional just means getting paid.
If so then I reject the implication that you cannot get meaningfully paid without making an open source project closed source.
How do you suggest they get paid? There's a massive issue with most foss devs and maintainers being unpaid and burnt out while their work is used by corpos and more often than not they don't receive a dime
This here. FOSS as a dedicated concept exists since around 40 years and we still haven't figured out how to fund it.
The only meaningful way to fund FOSS is the Linux way: Coprorations use the FOSS in a way where they can't sell the software directly, instead, the software is used as infrastructure to make money another way.
Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle and so on, they make money by selling cloud compute running Linux. To do so, Linux needs to be really good, so they contribute developer time too the Linux kernel and to certain tools.
The same strategy works for programming frameworks, like Angular, which is being developed by Google, because Google uses it in tons of their products.
But this doesn't work for end customer software and it's basically impossible to get a "grassroots" developed piece of FOSS into the corporate mill.
You say most, so some have figured it out then?
I think a universal basic income would make it a lot easier for devs to choose to continue/start making free (libre) software. Depending on the country, a UBI funded by tech companies - including those corpos using it without giving back.
Yeah, some of them were lucky to get funded by corporations
UBI would be nice, but I guess we're not seeing it, same as any other improvements
Looks like you have never tried to monetize FOSS.
It's close to impossible. Look at heartbleed or the xz disaster. Two fundamental pieces of software used on billions of devices, neither of them made enough money for a single full-time dev.
And you are suggesting that one can make enough money from a FOSS REST client?
Look at breadsmasher's original comment. There's not a word in there about "betraying FOSS ideals", nor does it contain a complaint about "closing the source".
No, the whole comment is "Fuck Thunder REST because they want me to pay for features". Breadsmasher is a freeloader. He would never donate anything. He uses FOSS, not because he wants freedom as in free speech, nor does he use it because he wants to review or modify the source. He uses FOSS for the "free as in free beer" aspect.
And when someone says "Now please contribute to a project you've been using for free", he gets entitled and throws a fit like a two-year-old.
If you know where I could read about the monetary issues of xz and heartbeat I would appreciate such links.
You could be right about their ill motives for what they said but we do not know if they can even afford to pay or know enough to contribute. You could say my motives for software freedom are selfishly motivated, and I've only donated an OS. Given the numerous libre projects in our OS it's difficult for anyone to do them all?
It makes sense that it's more difficult to earn money from software when you attach a software freedom license - you're actively choosing to not take advantage of your users. Like choosing not to just dump mercury in the river when it's legal.
I enjoy writing code so not having the bad incentives from trying to monetize it seems a blessing - I don't feel compelled to deny user software freedom for profit. I think focus may be better placed on promoting a univeral basic income - where everyone's income doesn't start at 0. That would help devs choose to keep their projects open.