Comment by fsndz

I receive $0 compensation for working on the D compiler. It's Boost licensed. Everyone is free to use it for whatever they want, and the source code is free to use, too.

I'm fully aware of what I'm doing :-)

The D Language Foundation is a non-profit, has expenses, and is funded by donations. None of it goes to me.

As an Open Source maintainer, I have always considered it something to do when I want to. If it becomes a burden or a chore, then I stop doing it, regardless of demands from users.

I have no expectations of the users, and I expect the same from them.

Many of the most important open source software is developed by paid professionals, not by volunteers. The large open source projects are basically just collaboration efforts between various large tech corps to jointly develop infrastructure that they all need. This is true for Linux, Clang, Kubernetes, KVM, for example. There are some critical bits that are still volunteer work (xz being an infamous recent case), but this is clearly the direction things are going.

Isn't it just a matter of choosing the license properly? To be honest, I find it contradictory:

On one hand OSS authors select permissive license exactly because they want big corps to use their software.

On the other hand - OSS authors are unhappy about big corps using their software in a way that license allows them to.

Just stick to GPLv3 / AGPL.

GitHub Sponsors seems promising... If one somehow gains a large amount of fans. I gained one last time my work was posted here and I'm really grateful for it. I refuse to advertise my projects though. Simply because I hate ads myself.

I think the best option is to just AGPLv3 everything. You maximize freedom but still own the copyright so if corporations want your software they can simply pay for permission to use it. AGPLv3 gives us our leverage back in an ethical way.

Even asked Richard Stallman what he thought of it. His reply:

  > It is my understanding that as the copyright holders
  > they have the right to do it without any problems.
  > They leverage the AGPLv3 to make it harder for their
  > competitors to use the code to compete against them.

  I see what you mean. The original developer can engage
  in a practice that blocks coopertation.

  By contrast, using some other license, such as the ordinary GPL,
  would permitt ANY user of the program to engage in that practice.
  In a perverse sense that could seem more fair, but I think it is
  also more harmful.

  On balance, using the AGPL is better.

At JustDo we make our source code available for transparency and collaboration, we use a source-available license that ensures fair compensation for our work. This model allows us to maintain the benefits of open development while avoiding the pitfalls of unrestricted open-source licensing, ensuring we can sustainably develop and support our software.

I developed this license https://justdo.com/source-available-license , if someone wants to adopt it for their project, I'd love to provide its Latex form, just DM me. (With enough demand, I might Open Source the Source available license ;) )."

> "It makes no sense to write amazing software, used by large corporations to generate billions, while you end up poor and bitter."

Lots of us said this in the 1990s by the way. Even back then, the belief that many developers and businesses would reciprocate by freeing their own source or even that enough would reciprocate for FOSS to be self sustaining was clearly, ahem, unrealistic.

As an open-source developer, my thanks is that I get the program or the change. Everything else is charity, and I treat it accordingly.

I've always seen contributing to OSS as more akin to volunteering as a treasurer at a local sports club than as a job. Just because you do many of the same activities that other people get paid for doesn't make OSS a "job". Making something useful and giving it away for free is laudable charity, but it's not sustainable business strategy.

I sew my own clothes, grow my own food, and give away all my excess instead of selling it.

I use only open source software. Thanks for writing it.

Surprise safety orientation, we're on an airplane: take care of yourself before others.

A big part of Open Source is not knowing or caring about the intentions of the user. Wherever it may go is magical but also, potentially, terrifying.

I can't articulate it that well, but look back at the whole RSA/military grade encryption thing for references.

I'm lucky enough to be employed full time to work on open source, but I still build my own OSS in my own time because it scratches a different itch. My work on Astro is fun, but it's my job, with Linear tickets and standups and 1:1s and quarterly planning. My own OSS is where I build whatever fun stuff I feel like without pressure. It has enough users that I do get issues, but not too many that they're overwhelming. I think the very fact that I have a job in OSS makes it easier for me to dismiss the entitled users who come to my personal projects demanding support. I build that for fun, and I owe you nothing.

Or maybe accept that we know what we're doing and we're even perhaps happier not accepting money for our work. To me, an exchange of money implies a stronger commitment to timely support and to prioritizing and implementing features or bug fixes that paying customers want. A big part of why I volunteer with open source projects is that I hate that feeling when doing professional software development.

Even if it was strictly a donation model, I'm not sure I'd feel completely comfortable with that.

It's not a job

Per FOSS yearly survey, almost all maintenners are doing it as a paid job.