Technology

People who are motivated by money have been saying this for decades. And they’re still wrong because not everyone is motivated by money.

The bigger issue isn't compensation but rather the number of corporations who profit handsomely off of the labor of Free Open Source Software developers.

It's okay if FOSS developers don't get compensated, that's part of their ethos.

It's not okay for corporations to be like "thanks for this free thing, we're going to take all that profit that your ethos makes you not care about, and what we give back to the open source community will pale in comparison."

Of course that's not always true, a handful of companies really pay FOSS developers really well. Valve for example. IBM/RedHat for another.

But for every company that respects where it's code comes from and wants to support those developers, there's several more companies that just use FOSS as 'off-the-shelf' components with no intention to do anything but use it, set it, and forget it with intent to make profit.

One way to ensure FOSS developers are paid well is to spend money at businesses who pay FOSS developers well and keep them on actual payroll.

ITT: A bunch of people who (a) likely have jobs that pay them for their time and (b) have probably never maintained or contributed to a FOSS project, saying that FOSS developers shouldn't be able to make a living doing FOSS.

But somehow FOSS development is totally sustainable in their mind because once you burn out working for free you can be easily replaced?

Please just forget the fact that many large and successful FOSS projects (Linux, Blender, Wine, Gnome, Ubuntu, Godot, the list goes on and on) are maintained and developed by professional developers, who are paid, and who ought to be paid for doing what is very much a full-time job at scale.

OP wanted a fun child project, but it's not fun anymore, just responsibilities.

The problem I see is just a difference between expectations and reality.

Expectations were: it would be fun to give people something for free, create open source, be part of some community. Maybe even get some recognition, maybe better job offers.

Reality is: noone cares about your open source project enough to pay for it.

And such is life. Noone stops you from just stopping working on it, and that's an adult option. All open source licences have a clause like "I don't own you nothing", and maybe that's the moment to use it.

When you release your software for free you don't owe anybody a thing. If you're getting burnt out or it's impacting your personal life too much then don't be afraid to stop and hand over control of the project gracefully. The latter is hard to do for most people though, because giving up something you've spent so much time and effort on is challenging. However, your irl always comes first.

Burn out and stress applies regardless of whether you get paid for your work or not. Plenty of people feel the same way about their paid jobs too. I think all being paid to continue work on this project will do is prolong the inevitable, that it's time to move on regardless.

Yep. Same problem we have with AI use of free-to-view literature and art. The author’s intent is often to invite others to participate in a collective effort, and start an ongoing conversation where works can be shared back and forth and everyone improves as a result.

Corpo use of FOSS — and especially ML training on free-to-view works — often takes the fruits of the collective effort and then sprints directly away from the community, refusing to participate and sometimes even wrapping a thin for-profit layer around the free underlying tools.

In the case of AI, this for-profit wrapper is so comprehensive and so thoroughly obscures any reference to the source material that not only can it replace the original communities very effectively, but it denies any ability to navigate through to the original communities even if you wanted to.

The corporations 'doing the right thing' by subsidizing FOSS are under the same enshittification pressures as the rest of the global economic system, and as a consequence they will sooner or later not be doing the right thing at all.

If the author no longer has passion for his OSS project, and isn’t being paid for it, why is he still working on it? Why should he feel responsible for companies building their processes on a free piece of software without guaranteed support? Why the heck is he sacrificing sleep for something he claims not to care about anymore? It sounds to me like he’s not living his values.

If compensation for volunteer work is mandated, it becomes less volunteer work and more of a part(or in some cases full)-time job. My understanding is that a core pillar of open source software is that anyone can contribute to it, which should make it easier for contributors to come and go. Based on the graph shown it would take more than a full-time job worth of money to meet his demand, which seems unlikely in any case, and it’s time for him to go. Either someone else will volunteer to pick up the slack, the companies using it will pay someone to pick up the slack like the author mentioned, or the software will languish, degrade, and stop being used.

I don’t see how any of those outcomes suggest that people need to be paid for the time they voluntarily give. I could get behind finding better ways to monetarily support those who do want to get paid, but “how could it be easier to pay OSS contributors after their passion is gone?” is a lot less provocative of a headline.

Not everyone is driven by money, some people care about improving computing.

The time wasted writing that whinging blog post could have been used to write working software.

Or enjoying life.

Or literally doing anything else