Hi,

After I read the article , I don't think so. Is The preimum feature he means like forge ?

Maybe , premium feature is like addon ,plugin,service using laravel not core.

Like As shown in the example you say , I think that Laravel's core is free, too.

Taylor will do because he love open source community and laravel .

Thank you.

"These premium, opt-in features of Laravel will allow us to continue to build amazing features, while maintaining the focus of the framework core."

Premium the majority of the time does mean exclusive and expensive. However, there is nothing wrong with creating plug-ins or add ons for an open source framework and charging for them. It is the same as using Wordpress and having third-party companies create packages for that framework or library. Again, it is the same as using Jquery and having to pay for some nice Jquery plug-ins out there. If you built a an entire framework used by thousands of people, why would it be "Wrong" to offer premium features. After all, most of these people dedicate their time and service to building these frameworks so we can use them and benefit from them. Does not a builder have a right to benefit from his building.

Yes, open source as Aaron Swartz help setup has some guidelines and Taylor is within those guidelines.

1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

The above is from opensource.org definition of open source software and it clearly says "shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software"

So given the definition, any party can sell the software if they choose to do so only once without a recurring fee or added fee beside the sale itself.

Please let me know if I read this wrong.

while i want to see a premium version of an expansion from Taylor, i kind of agree with OP. Looking around other open sourced projects, I haven't seen a single open source core member selling a premium add on.

Those 3 aren't premium, they are free. He probably meant more stuff like Forge (10 dollars a month), or perhaps some other SAAS or features not many people need, so aren't 'worth it' to make them for free.

To be honest, if I have to pay 10 (or 50 or 100) for something that saves me a lot more (en dev-time, other software), it would be still worth it.

While I can see the arguments from both sides, I don't necessarily have an issue with it. Taylor has written a great base framework, if he wants to write some proprietary packages, hey good for him. Would you complain about Sentry being open source but requiring a subscription for Sentinel? What about RHEL and CentOS?

The underlying fact is that the packages will have to be supported, and you can't expect an employer to keep giving away company time to maintain open source projects. His time is valuable just like anyone else, so if he wants to charge for these, good for him.

Barry makes an even better point - if a package is solid and it saves me a significant amount of dev time, dropping an arbitrary amount of money is trivial as long as I'm paying less than it would cost me to produce a home-grown version of the functionality.

We are not discussing here if it's right or wrong for someone to write both for open source but also on the side write premium code for a fee. That's completely acceptable.

What we are discussing is for a CORE Laravel team member to both be in a decision making position for the evolution of the platform and at the same time trying to make money on that same platform by restricting what's in it, that's the whole point it's a conflict of interest.

If Taylor wants to write premium package he should relinquish his position for decision making on the Laravel framework, it's that simple. You can't be two faced.

In the meanwhile other TRULY open source frameworks

I don't think you've read Laravels license. It is MIT which is not a FOSS license.

trying to make money on that same platform by restricting what's in it

That is a pretty bold claim friend. Forge is a "premium" addon because it isn't framework core. Complaining about Forge is like complaining that Heroku isn't included with rails.

If Taylor wants to write premium package he should relinquish his position for decision making on the Laravel framework, it's that simple. You can't be two faced.

The fact of the matter is that Taylor can do whatever he wants with Laravel.

Not to mention there are serious CORE features missing from Laravel like a rails like asset pipeline. There is no time for non-core features.

Something leads me to believe you haven't actually used the Rails pipeline.

Honestly easier to just use grunt or gulp or the millions of other tools that already handle that.

newtonianb said:

Not to mention there are serious CORE features missing from Laravel like a rails like asset pipeline. There is no time for non-core features.

I was kind of with you until you said this. The whole point about open-source is that people can contribute. If you want an asset pipeline so bad, write it yourself and submit a pull request. Or sponsor another developer to add the feature for you.

Your sense of entitlement is kind of killing the rest of your argument.

@sbarre Agreed

Firstly, you're an idiot.

Secondly, if you think an asset pipeline is required (it isn't, use grunt or gulp like a real developer) then you are a stupid idiot.

Thirdly, learn to comprehend what non idiots (like Taylor) say in articles. They write with very clear english (you should try it).

Lastly, go use rails.

This post isn't about me robclancy, take your adderall pills before joining a conversation.

I made the choice to never release any premium code. Instead decided to release Forge, a premium, optional service.

Thread can be closed now?

Well what better way to end what was supposed to be a discussion. Wonderful! Thank you Taylor

Not that I have any moral qualms with people charging for their work. In fact, I would say that the demand for free software is the more unethical approach, but I digress. I don't have any plans to charge for my code and will continue to provide you slave labor for as long as you like. :)

You don't need an asset pipeline: "The asset pipeline is technically no longer a core feature of Rails 4".

If you want an "asset pipeline" you can use one from packagist.

Thank you for your slave labor Mr. Otwell :-)

Honestly the service is amazing even with the latest changes! When I write support I get an answer in a timely manner. What more could you ask for. Keep up the good work.

@TaylorOttwell I am new to Laravel, but it looks amazing! I think Open Source is brill, BUT authors need to eat, so if additional stuff costs, I make a decision based on my needs - if a reasonable cost for my purposes then it worth paying to get supported code from someone more expert than me, and easier/quicker than trying myself. My son works on open source stuff, and I am astonished how demanding people are who do not, and have no intention of, donating or otherwise supporting him. All power to you, and thanks for what you are doing!

This is absolutely nonsense , Ottwell's decision to back down doesn't change the fact that Laravel is in a very unhealthy state - check out the commits distribution - 2200 commits for Ottwell , 800 for all the rest . Looks like a one-man show (which is why that one man can suddenly decide to develop premium features) . U can check Ruby on Rails core team and how the commits distribute to see how a healthy framework should look like . Laravel will basically collapse once it's creator decides to move to something else. It's not how a solid open source framework should like imo.

Probably the easiest thing ever is to write a comment on the internet. If you want to improve the situation then go submit some solid pull requests.

You don't get to just choose how someone else spends their free time. You do choose how you spend your time. If you don't like that other people aren't contributing much, then change it.

@yoelblum You are completely free to use the power of the fork button and go do a better job if you feel you are up to it.

The "preimum" thing has also been answered. So you clearly haven't taken the time to read the previous page of posts. So, do understand that I don't really have the faith in you running a project when you are so clearly ignoring the previous conversation just to inject your personal feelings on how things are not to you liking.

What exactly is forcing you to use Laravel? If you don't like the way things are done, you are free to not use it, or as I said before fork it and manage things the way you see fit. That way you win by having things your way (tm) and we win by not having to deal with this stupid stuff repeatedly.

Bottom line you didn't contradict me about the unhealthy state of the Laravel framework , you just told me to personally try to change things .