no, I work on open source because I want it to be freely available to all, without conditions

I view it as a type of charity. I know not everybody can afford to use their time without compensation. that's ok!

but I will personally never charge, and I oppose this commercial mindset

But also does it even have to be a construed as charity? Why do we need to put it in economic terms? Why not just -- something you do because otherwise it wouldn't exist? And you want it to exist?

In any case, +1, I find these posts to be pretty tiresome, and honestly, at this point irritating. Open source is open source, it's code we build in the open, together. If you don't have the time or energy to contribute, please let other people take over. It's not open source if it feels like work you should be compensated for. In my opinion, you should save that mentality for your job.

▲

albinn 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I admire this mindset, and this is what I try and do as well with my projects.

But for larger projects, on which the giants rests, (I'm thinking cURL, ffmpeg etc.) it most likely stops becoming/feeling like charity. Especially, since a lot of people do not see it as charity, and thus tries to force the maintainer(s) to do even more unpaid work.

	▲	timcobb 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The onus is on the maintainer(s) to work on the project as much as they can and want to, if people are creeps who try to socially manipulate maintainers to do free work, I think we need mechanisms to help mitigate that. For example, I think maintainers should be encouraged to delete GH comments they find offensive or harassing. It's their domain, they should keep it in a way they find enjoyable. But turning open source into a job? No thank you! Adding money to something, overwhelmingly almost always in my experience, makes it that much worse and stressful. Money is not the answer!
	▲	gorgoiler 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think one has to go clear eyed into freely licensing one’s software. It’s hard to declare you’re giving up all rights and that the IP can be used in any way, only to later say “no not like that!” If you want a cut of your licensee’s revenue then it’s ok to say so in your licensing terms.

▲

PurpleRamen 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This seems more about infrastructure than open source itself. It seems fair to let them pay for the additional unnecessary costs they create, especially when they can do better.

▲

thin_carapace 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

ultra rich corporations generally reach their status thru direct harm. why are you ok with them using your product for free?