I'm glad... because you separated the topic and clarified my doubts. You have a big heart, thank you so much for the opportunity.
So I want to know the opinion of other people too as you. One last question that I had to talk about would be about this:
"I think this would be a perhaps viable alternative: this could be resolved if there was a certification to enable people to make money with Joplin or unofficial developers certified to make money with Joplin app.
A permanent certification or something that is updated by period."
So as you can see, this would be a way to get money back for the community.
It would be really cool to be Joplin certified but... that would be one of my plans for the future.
I mentioned these points to clarify some doubts that may arise. I hope I have collaborated on something in the sense of proposal, concept for app-joplin or community-app-joplin
I was thinking of a json api service. Example: { "license": "Mit", "integration": "Google Docs", "price": "free", "source": "open source"}
I could mention the use case of libreoffice that has a quote recovery program. If Joplin wants to have a certified free software reference, it could use LibreOffice as an example.
I hope you don't get sad or angry about what I'm going to talk about here or some points that I will put here. I'm just speaking respectfully and thoughtfully. If you want to make a counter-argument, I'd like to hear your side.
Now....
I don't think this comment is interesting, I'm not speaking against you, but against your idea.
Why?
If Joplin thinks a lot about being open-source the Joplin code would be hosted on sites like Gnu Savannah or Codeberg or it would have its own self-hosting version like Gnome has based on GitLab.
So... in my humble opinion, there is a consistency error in your idea because Joplin is hosted on a platform called GitHub that is owned by Microsoft. In other words, it wouldn't make sense to say this: "I don't see any reason to facilitate paid proprietary plugins. If we wanted paid, proprietary programs we wouldn't be using Joplin."
Building the same idea with your idea: "I don't see any reason to facilitate open source software. If we wanted open and free programs, we wouldn't be donating money to develop them like Joplin."
So... some doubts:
What's wrong with donating money to open-source software as a user or developer?
Is it wrong as a user and developer to support Joplin development and adoption?
I open this thread to explore ways to monetize Joplin for developers. One of the ways is with donation(devs) or through paid plugins(users). So... I do not think in this sense that your comment is something constructive that can add to this topic.
Donation is not something you would receive from user, usually you receive donation between developers.... but... just relying on donations from developers is not such a good thing, it would be nice to have donations from users, developers. Because both users and developers are people who can change their minds about certain tastes. You only receive donation from one side, it makes development difficult.
Therefore, some open source projects look for other forms of monetization, such as sponsoring companies or through a subscription program. A good example of this case is Joplin.
My argument here would be to make Joplin a marketplace, which is being built little by little. In this sense, having paid, free plugins would be a good way to develop and adopt Joplin.
Also, the Joplin license is MIT and not GPL v.2, v.3 or AGPL. Which makes no sense to say this as Joplin is not licensed under any GPL v.2, v.3 or AGPL license.
Give me a break. The platform effects of big providers like github have an impact on where people host. No one has to be rigidly dogmatically FOSS in every way to "not be a hypocrite." There are more than enough paid proprietary note taking apps. Go develop for them if you want to develop proprietary software. We don't want proprietary garbage.
I don't think in this sense that your comment is anything constructive that I can add to this topic. So... this argument is of the conformism type. That is, what is good for me is true, what is not what I believe is not true. In this sense my previous argument is true, it is easier for users to adopt proprietary plugins than free plugins. Users don't compile code, users install things.
That's what I'm trying to say here. I wanted proprietary plugins to avoid this "hypocrisy". Precisely because Joplin is hosted on GitHub and has an MIT and non-GPL license.
I'm not dogmatic, so that's why I requested this thread from proprietary plugins. The MIT license allows this.
@benmordecai If everything proprietary is bad, are all open source projects on GitHub bad? like Joplin?
@benmordecai hope I have clarified all the points here.
Gigantic platforms that have majority marketshare are not as easy to avoid. Small note taking apps that are FOSS leaders are not the place for proprietary software. I would be happy if everyone became FOSS dogmatists and if Joplin's license forbid proprietary extensions but it is not my project. If you want to leech off of free software to shill proprietary products, don't ask Joplin devs to help you do it.
true... but the best way to deal with this would be to have an inclusive and participatory market like the proprietary extensions I mentioned here. With greater market share, maybe Joplin will be more FOSS.
I would be happy too, and here is our point of conclusion and convergence. The way this is done. I think that having proprietary extensions, we can then be more open.
Because with more financial resources, we can be more consistent in the open organization to the point of not depending on anything proprietary. @benmordecai
You're only free if you can choose, if you can't choose anything. You are not really free. I speak of freedom here in the economic sense, in the sense of choosing the software, the tool, the clothes, etc. The idea of the mit license is in this context that I speak of and it makes sense in this topic here.
I just want to add that can we please make sure that we continue keeping things civil here, I don't want to close anything because of arguments.
I don't think this makes sense as the project would be the same if it was hosted on Gitlab or any other hosting service. This argument to me is no different from it being developed with non FOSS text editors or on a closed source OS (which it was, macOS).
There isn't anything stopping people developing paid plugins or closed source plugins, I'm simply of the opinion that the organisation should not be hosting them as it very much goes against the idea of open source - we have had so many contributors volunteer their time and efforts, both first time and experienced, to the project and I think there is definitely an ethical issue if the org starts actively providing support to non FOSS developers.
There is a big difference between permitting closed source stuff and actively supporting it.
@Daeraxa Please, you should have read my comment before. So... I came up with this idea, after our friend's misconception @benmordecai , saying that everything that is proprietary is bad. Again, I'm not talking about the person, but the idea. So... I want to help the joplin community with proprietary plugins.
I'm not sure what you mean? I did read it and I'm saying it doesn't make sense as a rebuttal to @benmordecai's comments etc. The relationship between the FOSS and proprietary parts are reversed which have a huge impact.
I use anki, an open source flashcard software, and his plugins have a list, like joplin, https://ankiweb.net/shared/addons/2.1 , he does have paid plugins, but they are official. If you are interested, you can take a look at https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/771677663
However, unofficial fees do exist, but they are only sold privately. Official support is not provided, and they are not in the official plug-in list.
As benmordecai said. If you want to leech off of free software to shill proprietary products, don't ask Joplin devs to help you do it. I share this sentiment, Joplin devs have a ton of work to do and a lot of it is selfless.
In general we aren't opposed to commercial plugins - you create something, want to charge for it, and people are happy to pay for it, then great. We have nothing against that of course.
As to whether we'll host it on the upcoming plugin website, I don't know yet. It shouldn't become a support burden for example, with people coming here asking for (free) support for someone else non-free software.
I didn't want to refute it in any way, I just added the points. I just found the previous comments to be meaningless because it doesn't agree with what the MIT license proposes.
What I said is that it makes no sense to say that proprietary things are bad if the license itself allows it. In that sense, this topic is right because it's in line with the license that allows developers to create proprietary stuff.
Furthermore, what I said before only reinforces the idea of the MIT open license and the open market of plugins, themes from Joplin. What I'm talking about is having a proprietary extension just that, so I can offer free extensions as well.
Furthermore, what I said reinforces the idea of making Joplin more adopted and therefore freer. Maybe with more money Joplin is more FOSS. For this to be possible, it is necessary to develop commercial things, both paid and free.
That is, I would just like to be free as the MIT license proposes, including creating proprietary plugins.
As Laurent said, you can do what you like and charge for it, close its source etc. but having the organisation host it and advertise it has its drawbacks both practically and ethically.
In this case it is "free" as in "free speech" - you can say what you want but nobody has to give you a platform or be forced to listen to you.
My take on this is that GH itself may be proprietary but it is used because of how established it is in the community and how much of a positive effect it has had in general. If GL was as big or bigger and offered the exact same features then I think you would see more people there. It is a matter of convenience.
This doesn't change that the relationship is very different in the examples. A FOSS project supporting proprietary and commercial plugins is a very different concept from a proprietary service supporting FOSS projects.
With GitHub it is possible to donate money to open-source projects, which is not a bad thing. So I don't think it's bad to use GitHub. Even because GitHub like Joplin or any software is a tool. In that sense, choosing the tool is just a matter of convenience as well.
What I said earlier reinforces this idea. Users don't compile stuff, they just install it. In this sense, having commercial plugins is something possible and viable from developers to users.
Having commercial plugins in Joplin doesn't change anything. So, the previous comment that said that proprietary things are bad, doesn't make sense.
Joplin could be a company, perhaps in the future, to help more open source projects like GitHub. And to be honest, I don't want to convince anyone. Because I have more doubts than certainties. So... I liked your comment, because it made me think, reflect.
