Proprietary source code and paid plugins

PackIt plans to adhere to a FOSS approach: the source code is open, any user can verify what a plugin does, and developers can freely study others' solutions and contribute to the community's development. However, the question arises: should the distribution of plugins with closed source code be allowed, including obfuscated builds, and should the restriction on paid plugins be removed?

On one hand, this would open up additional opportunities for developers. Some authors would be able to monetize their work, which could potentially lead to the emergence of larger and more functional projects. Furthermore, some developers are likely simply not ready to publish their work in an open format, but might be willing to release plugins in a closed format. On the other hand, closed source code inevitably reduces the level of transparency. The user can no longer independently verify exactly what the plugin does, what data it processes, and what actions it performs within the client. Even with moderation, there remains a certain level of trust required in the plugin author.

If this feature is added, such plugins will be clearly highlighted in the catalog. They will display a large warning stating that the source code is not available for verification and that usage is solely at the user's responsibility. Paid plugins will also have corresponding labeling. The question is: should closed and paid plugins be allowed, while maintaining user notification about potential risks, or is it better to continue adhering strictly to the FOSS philosophy and allow only fully open solutions?

Voting is available here.

Forum | PackIt RU