I've always found commercial entities to build superior products that open source projects always end up adopting.
One makes the tools, the other assembles them and sells it.
Must be the focus on profits that helps push companies to build products users want, while the love of the craft pushes developers to make the best foundations.
Shamelessly stealing this line of thinking to use in the future.
be prepared to pay royalties, or possibly face criminal copyright infringement, for using that line of thinking in the future.
(this comment is supposed to be some sort of "joke". but the yoke is on most of us)
And this is also how I separate my work from my hobby. I'm proud of those who can make money from a hobby, but I simply do not try. The motivations are fundamentally different and it changes how much I enjoy my hobby. I wish I learned this in my early 20s. I spent years thinking, "if it can't make money or someone's done it better, it's not worth doing."
Ghost is a non-profit organization that publishes it code as MIT.
You don't structure your company as such because you're wanting to generate a lot of profits nor prevent others from profiting from your work.
It seems like Substack is just embarrassing what Ghost set its charter as: a non-profit that allows others to benefit from its work.
(emphasis mine). Nice Freudian Slip there, buddy :-)
How, exactly, is open source "basic research funded by the public"?