Open Source Maintenance Fee is ok, but the wording of 'sponsor' is not.

[super-brian]

Question

My company wants to use wix toolset as an open source, but to use the wix nugets, the fee is required, which is ok. But because the fee is to become a 'sponsor', the company cannot pay right away - to become a sponsor requires a whole different and complex process. Can you use a different expression than 'sponsor'? My company is NOT interested in becoming a sponsor to use this software, just becoming a customer is good enough, just like any other software and hardware manufacturers. Yes, becoming a customer or paying a fee for open source code is also weird, but at least legally it is way simpler and easier - if the contract says 'open source, so no service or responsiblity for using this software' then that's ok. we just need to use it as it is, since we pay not a whole lot anyway. (only $60 or more) If you can make another 'paying page' that uses 'customer' than 'sponsor' it would be much appreciated! (And please let me know)

Open Source Maintenance Fee

• I (or an organization I'm a member of) pay the Open Source Maintenance Fee by sponsoring the wixtoolset project because I support the maintainers.

[robmen]

The Open Source Maintenance Fee piggybacks on GitHub Sponsors' billing infrastructure for many reasons. GitHub has not (yet) made it possible to change the wording on the "Sponsor" button to something like "Pay", but they do make it clear that Sponsors is just a mechanism to pay the fee in their documentation.

I don't know what legal terms "sponsors" triggers for your company. If you have specific questions, you can take them to the Open Source Maintenance Fee Discussion forum and I'm pretty sure they'll get resolved.

Finally, just because something is "new" doesn't mean it's "weird". 😉