You make some excellent points, but what I think your perspective lacks is empathy. This stuff is so complicated.

If someone starts working on a project in college and 3-4 years later it blows up, they might now have a young family to consider. The person working on this thing that people love is no longer the same person who started it. In other words: life happened. Perspectives change.

It's also kind of pointless to deny human nature and we should at least try to assume best intentions; it's one thing to say all of the Rich Hickey stuff, and you might even believe it at the beginning of a project. X years later when someone raises $20M to build a company around the best parts of what you did and often forgets to mention you in the origin story... I suspect that would mess with you, and all of that stuff about entitlement would start to feel a bit thin. I don't begrudge people for those emotions, because it's not my place to do so and I see myself in their imperfect-ness.

Ultimately, I am optimistic that we will continue to establish better and better ways to create sustainable projects with maintainers that are compensated for their efforts.

▲

slopinthebag 2 days ago | parent [-]

Well, if you confronted me with an individual case of course I would feel empathy. That wouldn't change that I think they have incorrect ideas about open source, but I also wouldn't judge them either.

My point is more that people should try to have more realistic views about open source. People aren't obligated to credit your MIT licensed code (beyond the licence file) and you should be clear on that when you chose that licence. Heck, I've seen OSS maintainers outraged because someone forked their code, despite prominently crediting the source [0]. Some people consider that "bad form", in the same way people might consider monetising something previously open source to be "bad form". I think in both cases, people should just choose more appropriate licences. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I think Hecrj put it well here:

> 'Me giving away more "free gifts" cannot ever be considered "competing" with someone else that is also giving away "free gifts". The only way for someone to conclude that is if the original gifts are not truly "free", but come with some "hidden" expectations attached to them.'

If you believe that there are expectations attached to your code, you should choose a licence congruent to those expectations. Trying to enforce that through culture is probably a bad idea and will lead to strife.

> Ultimately, I am optimistic that we will continue to establish better and better ways to create sustainable projects with maintainers that are compensated for their efforts.

Yes, I hope so too.

0: https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/19296#issuecomment...

▲

peteforde 2 days ago | parent [-]

That link is a strong argument to support your position, no question. On this class of example, we have no disagreement. Those folks appear to have missed the seminar where they explain how this whole OSS thing works.

That said, I've said irrationally defensive things to people abusing my code when I'm tired and depressed, too. These are called passion projects for good reasons.

Where I would lodge disagreement is that I reject the notion that OSS is this pure, primeval mana which is made less righteous when people remember that they need money for rent. I don't think we should encourage people to see countless hours of volunteer effort as undeserving of financial support. I believe that OSS gets better when people are well compensated for contributing to it.

I respect the folks who are able to do it, but I resist the side-eye these folks often deliver when they hear someone is looking for a way to keep the lights on.

	▲	slopinthebag 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with all that