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. Aloha+bD[view] [source] 2024-01-22 23:03:15
>>fghoro+I7
I think your post makes a good point - the answer is, "it depends":

If your build process is so bespoke/complex (or can only be produced with licensed, hard to obtain software) and there is no way for a layman (meaning someone not well versed) in the specific technologies involved to produce a binary, then maybe it does require providing compiled software.

On the other hand, if anyone with say, a suitable host could download the software, and produce working binaries with a minimal time and knowledge investment, then maybe not.

[go to top]