zlacker

[return to "Open Source Doesn't Require Providing Builds"]
1. fghoro+I7[view] [source] 2024-01-22 20:20:40
>>mroche+(OP)
Respectfully, I disagree with the OP.

I'm using a router distribution -- no names please -- where the firmware build process is so intricate that their documented way to build LTS .iso images is via a docker based system. I've had very little luck (until recently) in getting that to actually work.

They provide nightly .iso images, but charge an arm-and-a-leg for the LTS images.

I've tried to use their nightlies, but they were subject to considerable churn in the last few months. That resulted in broken firewalls/routers.

I will NOT trust my firewalls to that, sorry.

In their defense, they _do_ have a way for "community members" (i.e. folks unwilling to pay $1000s/year for a stable build) to gain access to the LTS images. However the bar they have set to gain access is so high that my filing a bug they graded as "high priority" and then tracking down and verifying the workaround for a release candidate didn't qualify me to access the images.

I agree there is a gray area, and that the core developers deserve to be paid. I am actually willing to pay them for their software, but not $1000s/year.

In my honest opinion, they have crossed a line.

(Edited: changed "fix" to "workaround" above.)

◧◩
2. yjftsj+0A[view] [source] 2024-01-22 22:47:21
>>fghoro+I7
I'm not sure that I'm hearing the disagreement. You want stable binaries without paying anything, which I understand but that's not an open source thing. The only way I could see it being an open source issue is if the build steps they provide to the community are different than what they actually like internally, and even then you're really hedging on a particular definition of the preferred form for modification clause that I think the GPL has.
[go to top]