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.)
I've not used VyOS in recent years, but their pricing structure does seem designed to convert users to customers.
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.
$ git clone -b sagitta --single-branch https://github.com/vyos/vyos-build
$ cd vyos-build
$ docker run --rm -it --privileged -v $(pwd):/vyos -w /vyos vyos/vyos-build:sagitta bash
[docker] $ sudo make clean
[docker] $ sudo ./build-vyos-image iso --architecture amd64 --build-by "j.randomhacker@vyos.io"
[docker] $ sudo mount -i -o remount,exec,dev /vyos
[docker] $ sudo ./build-vyos-image iso --architecture amd64 --build-by "j.randomhacker@vyos.io"
[docker] $ exit
$ ls -l build/*.iso
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 502267904 jan 22 23:55 build/live-image-amd64.hybrid.iso
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 502267904 jan 23 00:04 build/vyos-1.4-rolling-202401222255-amd64.iso
Is this harder than downloading an .ISO from a website? Yes, of course. Do I expect everyone to be able to follow the manual? Probably not. But that's why there are ways to pay VyOS, this is a company doing open source after all.
If you can spare some server capacity and are willing to put in effort, you could set up a script to run the build process automatically and host the ISO files for everyone to download, as long as you remove all the trademarked branding of course.
You're not entitled to builds. You're not entitled to an easy build process. You're not entitled to access to a special LTS branch.
While I agree that it's annoying when an open source project is difficult to build, that's an opportunity for an interested contributor to step in and try to make it better. Not an opportunity for you to whine about it.
There is no "gray area". Consider if this was a proprietary product: you'd get literally nothing without paying, and even if you paid, you'd probably just get a firmware binary, with no access to the source.
You sound like an entitled person who thinks other people should make your life easier and give you stuff, without compensation. I suggest you adjust your expectations and stop assuming people should and will do free labor for you.
As an aside, I'm not surprised the build process is complicated: this isn't building a single library or binary, it's building an entire OS distribution. I'm sure the entirety of Debian or OpenWRT is difficult to build as well.
Edit: This bit just really got to me:
> I will NOT trust my firewalls to that, sorry.
Then pay! This idea that your firewalls deserve to be safe and secure and maintainable just because you want them to be, but are apparently not willing to pay for the software to make it so... do you seriously not see how ridiculous that is?
If you're unhappy with how this particular vendor gives away its free stuff, and don't want to pay for the product that you really want, find another vendor. If none exist that you're happy with, that is not the problem of any of these project maintainers. It's yours, and you get to solve it by writing code on your own, or by paying someone else to do it for you. You're not entitled to anything!
Regardless, the whole "free as in speech" (vs. "free as in beer") thing isn't saying that the code is like speech. It was just a way for the FSF to distinguish between the two confusing (in this context, at least) English meanings of the word "free".
Not saying everyone has the skills or time or even desire to contribute regularly to an open source project. And that's fine! But that doesn't mean whining about (what you see as) a project's deficiencies is ever cool.
(Note that I'm fine with people writing up constructive criticism. But just stuff like "this project doesn't provide release builds unless I pay and that's not fair" is just entitled nonsense.)
Similar model to Xen Orchestra, as I understand it. (Which is another product I've never used myself, coincidentally.)
What you are referring to is often labelled shared source. For instance, Microsoft offers the Windows source code to some customers for reference purposes, but that source is not allowed to be built or distributed.
It's fine to build a business model around your open source project. It's fine to charge for builds as your business model.
What is not fine is purposefully obfuscating the process needed to build that open source software to encourage users to just pay for the builds. That's shady and counter to the spirit of open source.