I'm struggling with the framing of all of this. I think it's clear that the author doesn't want to be involved with the realities (as unfortunate as they are) of maintaining an OSS project. There are very real issues with entitled or abusive users that have been well documented.

What I don't understand is the expectation that the money would just flow upon publishing the software with a permissive license. It sounds like a lesson learned the hard way that most people won't pay for software if they don't have to, or if they don't have a vested interest in the project succeeding. Products launched with OSS cores or with some value-added services model for revenue generally bake in some kind of monetization plan. Relying on "If I build it they'll pay me" seems a bit misguided, even if it can work under some circumstances.

The conclusion that OSS is just about people not wanting to pay any money is also problematic. The world runs on OSS, and that's arguably a good thing for a myriad of philosophical and practical reasons. The bad behavior that also happens to be an unfortunate reality doesn't negate this. The sustainability worries are real and need better solutions, but the answer isn't to abandon OSS. Even if it's the right choice for OP, his situation doesn't warrant broad conclusions, and seem less an indictment of OSS and more a misunderstanding of the playing field.

You do need to develop a very thick skin in OSS to be able to thrive. You need to learn to just block those issues+people, both in the repo and mentally. I'm a nobody, but still some of my projects got a bit popular and I felt the heat, e.g. one of them was a CSS library which was very "beginner friendly", so people came constantly to the Issues to ask help with their CSS and how to do their job (not about the library)* so I decided to remove the Issues tab in Github. This lead to someone opening a PR insulting people.

But I know for every AH like that, there's thousands or millions of people who do benefit of using my software, so I try to keep it up. I do work fulltime so now I have little time to do new projects, but still keep up with the PRs and occasional small improvements in existing ones (e.g. adding types definitions, or moving to ESM).

* IMHO the move that happened where newbies stopped trying to learn how to properly ask questions in SO since that community didn't allow homework questions or low quality and started going to the repos of the projects they used to ask those very same questions

I will never understand how entitled or mean people can be towards OSS devs. I sympathize with this post a great deal and wish the author all the best in whatever he does next.

For context, I started an open source project that is arguably 10x more popular than Nutjs (20k stars on github vs 2k). I also gave up on maintaining it, but others stepped in to take care of it so it's still running.

The parallels between open source and bolshevism are interesting. I'm not a history expert, but this is just how it appears to me.

  - Contempt for property
  - Pitches itself as a movement by "the people", ends up being a tool of the powerful (e.g. Microsoft's use of open source)
  - Punishes the producers by destroying the economics of production, rewards the stooges
  - Creates a high-low alliance between powerful and unskilled, drains the middle class

We self-sabotaged ourselves over decades, and now we're at a point where it's hard to turn back. Publishing source code for the greater good is a noble cause, but to be honest, I think that over the years, using "open source" has become an excuse to avoid paying for software.

i agree with most of what the author says, except this.

we sabotaged ourselves? by not predicting that people are greedy and have the nerve to complain about free stuff?

by giving code away and not expecting anything in return?

by building an entire operating system that now dominates the world?

i see no sabotage. nor do i see an excuse to avoid paying for software.

sure, there are freeloaders. and yes, there are idiots that feel entitled to get free support. and yes, companies are exploiting this.

but despite all that, thanks to an entirely free and open to modify operating system, the world is a better place for many.

what we failed to do is to make FOSS self sustainable in the sense that people can live off it.

but we have to ask, is that an error, or should we accept that as by design?

if it is the latter then we also have to accept that not everyone will be able to contribute. especially most will not be able to make a living from contributing to FOSS. but i believe this is fine.

contributing to FOSS should not expect a monetary reward. if you expect monetary reward, consider that the available FOSS software is comparable to other software that i'd have to pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for.

that is my monetary reward. but i am not making a living off it, nor do i expect to.

"The lower your prices, the more entitled the user base you seem to draw." Not literally, perhaps, but with a wider net you do catch more of the louder, more annoying or insulting voices. I've seen this repeated too many times already (RIP FairEmail).

Is this simply an endemic issue in the software space? I can imagine a great deal of people thinking it's not worth it to financially support a project or plugin they rely on because "I could make that myself in a weekend if I wanted to" and using that rationalization to justify being rude to the project's maintainer. Or perhaps the true believers in open source think that people should feed themselves on ideology rather than bread. Is there something else going on?

> This public issue on the nut.js repo ...

Personally speaking, if that user had posted something with the same attitude on one of my projects repos they'd have been banned from the repos of the entire org.

Pretty sure I've only ever had to do that twice before, across a lot of years.

I understand the sentiment for this article, but I disagree with the part about using open source mainly to avoid paying for software.

I use open source because I like having the ability to learn how it works. If I can't know how a program works, I can't have control over it. It is not my tool, I am its user.

I also just like learning how technology works in general, and non-free software is generally difficult to share the source code looking from the perspective of a company. Also in my experience, open source software is generally a more fun experience when using it. It gives me a sense of freedom in an increasingly restrictive world.

https://opendayz.net/threads/bliss-hiatus.7490/ From the person who was the straw that broke the camel's back, per say.

> I am continually innundated with support requests from users who fail to read even the most perfunctory of documentation. I do not have time to support and maintain the project at this time.

Fairly ironic.

I grew up in a community with things like a volunteer fire department. All the adults around me spent 10-20 hours/week in non-paid positions from coaching soccer to hospice care. A core of some dozens of people carried the community on their backs.

I still see that today. From the volunteers who coordinate 4th of July celebrations to the 4-H mentors to that guy who hauls his own equipment over every month to mow the vacant lot next to the town park, just because somebody needs to do it or it won't get done. Most of these people have day jobs. The folks who rescued people from freeway car crashes back in the day and the ones who still do it today have day jobs. Some are professional paramedics on the clock in the big city who do it for free out in the little village where they live on their days off.

I know the world of open source software is bigger than that. But I still see the world through the lens I acquired in childhood.

In my opinion, maintainers need to more actively block inconsiderate people. One thing Github should do is provide moderators ability to import a list of user accounts to block right from the gate. This way, communities can curate filters of accounts to be blocked like uBlock lists.

Rude and inconsiderate people need feel the pain of being actively blocked everywhere and not able to get anywhere forward with any of their requests. This can at least help OSS maintainers and developers get a little bit of mental sanity back

Every time I see someone being harassed for writing software in the open I'm going to think of the social campaign against the xz maintainer.

I maintain an OSS that is 10x smaller than the author of the post and I have experienced the same absurd community behavior.

I feel bad for the state of open source [0] - even when Microsoft literally a couple of weeks ago pulled the "FIX THIS NOW" card on ffmpeg https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4

[0] https://blog.tidelift.com/maintainer-burnout-is-real

Why do people get so bent out of shape over issues? I just ignore them on my repos, every once and awhile I may see if there's anything interesting.. But who cares what people demand, they can make them all day long but guess what.. You don't have to do anything about it! Open source has always been about scratching your itch and good luck to the next person if they can use what I made. Either way if you don't want to do open source that's great too! Good luck and thanks for the fish

Amen!

OSS is often sponsored by major corporations, for example React JS is essentially a Facebook product.

Creating something like Nut.js for free isn't sustainable, the author needs to eat after all.

Desktop automation is very very hard to do, people aren't usually automating this for fun. It's folks working at companies.

If it's free then you just have a free tool to use, and maybe you'll donate out of the good of your heart. But your not going to ask your boss to donate.

When it's a paid product you have to just tell your boss we need to buy a license.

Take a look a the profile a bit of the rude commenter on your issue. The person is a nobody. The internet is rife with them; any online game, any Discord channel has an asshole that types the same way. All bark, no bite. Block, ban, delete the issue, restrict them from the repo, don't even acknowledge their existence.

I've had differences of opinion with open source developers and maintainers. But, it costs nothing to be polite, especially when they are giving away their work and asking for nothing in return. When differences of opinion are strong enough, one is always free to take one's ball and go home. Forking or writing one's own alternative are both viable options. Fighting the maintainer is not.

Thankfully, my own open source projects aren't popular, so I don't have to deal with this level of self-entitled behavior. In other projects, when I report issues, I try to include a patch or PR that fixes the issue. If the maintainers are willing to work with me, I'll evolve this patch into something that they can merge into their project. If they are not, well, I can always maintain my own patches. Demanding that they fix an issue or launching insults -- even when certain toxic maintainers start this behavior -- isn't helpful to anyone.

I'm sorry the author was burned by bad experiences, but I completely sympathize with this decision.

Good read and I simpathise. Dealing with publicity can be horrible. You need such a thick skin and self confidence not to be moved by insults and demands coming with people actually start using what you created.

Unfortunately, if you want to monetize something that is open source, you have to start with monetization in mind and open source just enough to hook people then get them on service contracts.

When you do it the other way (start open source, transition to closed source) it seems like everyone thinks they are entitled to get your work for free and they send you hate mail.

I used to be a maintainer of a few semi-popular open source projects, and boy do I feel this. I know this probably sounds like I'm whining, but it can really grind on you in a few different ways:

1) The unpleasant interactions, while rare, tend to be VERY unpleasant.

2) Unless you are solely devoted to working on that thing as your only hobby, people start wondering about the delay between code/releases.

3) A certain amount of the work is just keeping the lights on: making sure your dependencies are secure, making sure that new change in Github actions doesn't break your build, etc. If you only have a limited time to work on a project, a lot of it gets spent here sometimes.

4) The more popular something is, the more eyes on it, and the more bugs are found (and the bigger chance your bug fix introduces new bugs, especially if you have limited time to spend fixing it). This then takes up a larger percentage of your time.

For a certain level of open source popularity I feel like I only get a few options. I can turn it into my job somehow, I can make it my only hobby, or I can walk away. In a few instances I've chosen to walk away. Sometimes there is someone to take over, sometimes there isn't. No matter what it feels like an impossible choice.

I like how the OP moves to a time release monetizing model, where like cockroach, it's open source eventually. It could be an interesting counterpoint to the open core model, and one much more feasible for an individual developer. Only problem is, how do you make sure the source is open for some but not others for that period of time?

I've got s pretty great solution to this kind of stuff, one that works for me anyway.

If I want something that doesn't exist bad enough, I make it. I release it to the world for free. When I need an improvement, I make the improvement. If you need an improvement, make a PR. If it's a feature request, unless I think it would be interesting to implement, make the tool more well rounded or I will find utility in the proposal, I don't do it.

I don't maintain beyond that. Sorry not sorry. If it's popular enough that a community forms around it the community can maintain it. If someone or some company comes to rely on it, they can maintain it. I made a thing, I gave it to the world for free just because, that's it. I don't owe the world anything and I'm not a charity.

To summarize - welcome to a real world. If you want to do open source you do it for your own sake / pleasure / whatnot. Do not ever expect anything in return. Ignore complaints you do not feel worth your attention as you owe nothing to complainers. They're free to search for the alternatives.

I feel it-- I gave up on open source about ~6 years ago when MS bought Github. I grew frustrated for a variety of reasons.

- I didn't like MS getting their hands on Github, knowing my code would be used to feed whatever MS had cooking.

- I began self hosting my code, only to become bitter with self-hosting solutions and peoples' general attitude towards it (why are you not on Github)?

- I refused to create a "Github" mirror to stay relevant.

- I also gave up writing (blogging) in general after realizing no one gave a damn what I thought.

- I then gave up sharing code in general as it felt like a burden. Why put my blood and sweat into something people won't use if it's not on Github, and then people feel entitled to whatever I make?

Yep. All my code is online, but if you want support, pay me. I put this in all my repos:

because of repeated abuse, I no longer offer free discussion of this software. so unless you have paid up front, do not:

post an issue, post a pull request, message me on Discord, email me

I understand some their complaints, others seem like typical support questions. It's inevitable and regardless of making money, it's going to happen. People suck at reading.

But, I can't look past the AI art used to generate the YouTube thumbnail on the main page. I'm sure some artist wishes they could work on an art full time, and still be able to pay their bills just as you say you wish about your software.

No one wants to pay for anything, including you.

I don't really have a lot of sympathy for people who post links as "examples" causing readers to witch hunt people on social media (GitHub in this case) regardless of their conduct. The user mentioned in the article has now been harassed so much they have deleted most of their GitHub and is threatening suicide.

This letter reads hollow and I've seen a number of them before. If everyone operated this way OSS would be an apocalyptic nightmare.

I'm also not really sure what the author expected here. Having popular stuff garners unfair criticism. It's part of the gig. You can't control it. It feels like a rant - I understand, completely - but when you send people to a specific comment and tell them "see what this asshole said about me!" you're sending emotionally charged people behind the defense of their computer screen to gang up on that person. It's no longer an example, it's an abuse of power. And it feels like the author knows this, given they felt the need to write an announcement article.

This feels incredibly poor taste.

There's quite a bit of cognitive dissonance in the article. Or I'm not reading it properly.

On one hand he talks about charging for his plugins, and on the other he says that open source is not sustainable unless somebody pays for it.

Yes. Somebody does pay for it. Either the programmer himself, or the company that employs the programmer. But somewhere along the line somebody, somewhere is paying for open source programming.

Yes there's a bit of quid pro quo. I'll use the gcc that somebody sweated blood, tears and money over for free. But the gcc that I use today allows me to put my software out there 'on the cloud' for the next person to use for free. Have I sweated blood, tears and money to produce my software? Yes, of course I have. Do I want cold, hard cash for that software? No.

There is a old principle here: 'Pass it around' or maybe 'Pay it forward' is how you first saw it. But I received gcc for free from upstream, I pass my own software downstream for free too.

"And so it goes."

One thing about the nature of open source software development is that the positive feedback channels are kind of limited. Sure, if someone opens an issue or a pull request on your project that's potentially a positive signal, but it's never a purely positive one. In pretty much every other place people put things they've created online there's room for reviews and comments to help other people decide whether to try something, so if you make something good you can get a lot of people saying what they like about it. This doesn't solve the negativity and entitlement of others, but it likely makes things feel more balanced.

Open source software, culturally and mechanically, doesn't have much room for unqualified positivity.

>All of my packages around nut.js will cease to exist publicly on npm. Ready-to-use packages will only be available through the private nut.js package registry, which requires an active subscription to be used.

>The GitHub repo will remain public, so if you want to continue using nut.js on your own, you'll have to take care of building, testing and hosting packages yourself.

Open source doesn't require distributing pre-built packages. So still is open source. This model was used by QtiPlot until the sources were eventually stopped being available, because surprise, surprise there're people that were building it from sources and then distributing.

Does anyone had a similar experience like that?

I totally understand the abuses described by the author and feel sorry about that. But I wonder how other successful open-source projects survived and eventually became rentable like Vue.js

This post risks confusing two things: maintaining open source software, and trying to make money from doing that. There's no real problem with the former: you do it because you want to, and you ignore people if they're unpleasant on GitHub or wherever. You just focus on making some nice software because that's what you want to do in your spare time, or perhaps in order to bolster your applications for paid work. Making money from open source software is something different entirely, and that's what the author is complaining about.

Don't forget where your paying customers came from.

They didn't find your closed source plugins, they were funnelled in from the open source project. The split license plugin model works because both sides of it are useful to different groups of people.

You get to upsell your free users additional features or support.

But more than any of that, all users complain, even paying ones. Especially paying ones. Don't kid yourself into thinking going fully closed will stop that, the difference is you'll just be dealing with fewer people. That's not as good as it sounds.

I think that there is a very unhealthy dynamic to modern open-source software. I do see a future for free software but I'm not really sure the way it is today with liberal-licensed software will be sustainable outside of what will essentially by corporate properties. We really need to be thinking more about how we can secure computing freedom and less about how we can get famous or create consultancies or whatever by getting lots of gh stars. That system is actively getting gamed as hard as possible and it will get worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists

This may be an unpopular opinion but my honest take on open source is MIT license or GTFO: Give the shit fully away, know you're giving it away, and importantly your strategy includes giving it away

The money is another channel. If you haven't figured out that channel, then it's in the form of W-2 employment which you landed due to your very impressive project.

Just in time before the CRA hits the fan. Since it's open source with commercial activity, he would be liable for the open source released on similar terms as proprietary software to all the free users that did not pay a dime (hopefully only within the requirements of the Act, I'm not sure about that).

If anyone is reading this and considering releasing their own closed-source NPM package, I built a service to help you do that [1].

It also supports Rust, Elixir, Erlang, Ruby, and .NET.

[1] https://codecodeship.com/

A lot of open source is commoditizing your complement, moving a project out if a company to reuse or monetize it, or a recruiting drive for talent or customers (i.e. marketing). Of course it's rarely said out loud so it is unsurprising when we get confused. I've been there.

Happens too often. Ironic that the open source, "free" projects are often the most criticized.

The number of Dislikes on that GitHub issue that the OP mentioned in the post has gone from 36 to the moon! https://github.com/nut-tree/nut.js/issues/577

My open source is a loss leader for a good discussion item during an interview.

Fair move. The world runs on FoSS and most of us contribute nothing. Software should be open-source and free but not at the expense of exploiting the few who actually contribute.

An interesting project, from what I can tell it's a JavaScript version of AutoHotkey's window interaction features? (also it works on Linux and Mac!) Very cool!

This is one of the posts where I just can't go away without commenting. I will be always on the side of the open-source developer basically in any situation. BUT (of course there is "but") in the post about selling plugin (Why I'm Charging What I'm Charging) author stated that he is made decision based on the fact that he bought Mac for developing Apple Silicon support. I will not pretend that I read everything in both posts and even fully understand cross-platform part in the project BUT as Apple hater I will say that author could just drop Mac support as alternative. Again I don't know if author's project can run on Windows ARM and if he ever bought Project Volterra. So if Mac made you paywall your plugin than sell it to Mac users and leave Win\Linux open source.

Developers choose packages. Executives or even managers are so far removed from the process, can't expect any monetary support from those who control the money.

I've met people like the public accuser, both online and IRL. Usually, they're quite easy to ignore and block out -- his comments on the GitHub issue are laughable after all.

His KoFi page even has the following blurb:

> I'm a software developer trying to make people's lives easier and more pleasant.

So, mission failed successfully I guess.

But ignoring comments like that becomes way harder when they're attacking things you care deeply about -- like the last 6 years of your work -- even to an absurd extent. Even when you know you don't owe random internet strangers anything. (If anyone has any tips on how to do this mindset better, I'm all ears.)

Last-straw moments really suck, and all the best to the author with whatever comes next, even and especially if it's "more of the same but without the BS".

>You should do a better job updating your documentation so that people do not waste their time like I did. This change to closed source was announced where, exactly? All of your READMEs and documentation sites do not mention this. Very easy to be confused and very disappointing to me that this went closed-source.

>Not only did you sell out, you also removed all the old versions that were released under an open source license so that others couldn't continue to use out-of-support versions. DISGUSTING.

>tl;dr get off GitHub and npm entirely if you want to do the closed-source thing, kthx.

---

This is a comment on an issue from the OP's project. A comment that was factually inaccurate from the start.

This smarmy piece of... well, this person has the nerve to use their full real name, full real profile picture and associated email addresses and blogs, to make such a self-righteous, entitled comment.

He looks to be a young guy, maybe anti-social and doesn't realize that "telling it like it is" is sometimes "being an asshole". I hope he matures.

---

edit to respond to gertop: (I got throttled by the system)

I mentored a guy one time who had absolutely no polish. Absolutely no sense of social self-awareness. When I met with him at one of bi-weekly meetings, he mentioned casually how he told his boss his internship "kind of sucks" and is boring.

I patiently tried explaining to him that there may be better ways to express one's interest in other areas of the department without slighting the boss's own team and mission. If he were capable of looking someone in the eyes, I'm sure he would have stared at me blankly.

There are people for whom interacting politely with others is wholly an unfamiliar concept.

The GitHub commenter has replied and he is not doing well. I feel sorry for him. Internet bullying is real.

I’m sympathetic to the author and having to deal with unpleasant folks. But I wonder how much of the economic experience is simply underestimating how difficult “business” actually is?

This has come up a few time recently on HN, where someone thinks there is an easy button for income. But there isn’t.

I'm sorry this person had to go through abuse and such difficult feelings to handle. Good luck if you read this! I'm with you.

> Open source is great, but it's not sustainable

It can be (I work for an open source company, our friends at Nextcloud are also fine, there plenty of examples of thriving projects), but it's a hard thing to tackle for sure and might not apply to every kinds of projects. As any kind of business, a business around open source requires a solid business strategy.

I also think dev libraries / components are probably among the hardest things to fund. I think the tools themselves should be open source and the dev subsidized by something else (a product for which the tool is developed, or consulting, or support, or hosting).

You can also sell entreprisy features to companies, even as free software actually (open core is not necessary, and the bulk of the feature can also be in a gratis module and you only sell the convenient UIs). Make it easy to employees of a company using your work to justify an expense. People will be happy to support your work if they like it by making their employer pay, and the employer will most likely be happy to pay because this can be reassuring, especially if support comes with the payment. It's way easier than relying on donations.

In any case, your open source business strategy of course needs to take in account that people will use your open source code for free, and will also report bugs, feedback, feature requests, ask questions, and this is costly. Sometimes you can manage to setup a community where people help each other, addressing the issue partially.

You'll need to have good communication on what is paid for, what are the expectations, etc; and well prepared answers to requests in tickets that both makes it clear you need to keep the lights on and don't piss people off. With good phrasing most people will understand and be grateful you are providing many things for free.

Of course there will be the mean comments. Some are not actually meant to be mean, but just come from people being pissed off or from misunderstandings. Effective communication can help with this. And some just come from jerks, unfortunately. I can only wish you good luck with this. Hang in there. Don't let them hurt you and take bad decisions. Hopefully (fortunately?) they are very few. Keep in mind most people are well meaning, grateful and most are quiet, especially when things work well for them.

I totally sympathize with not wanting to work on something that has become neither financially nor personally rewarding. I think the "early access" subscription model is a good, fair one, and I hope it succeeds.

> I also always believed that if you ever started a project that is valuable for companies, they would support you in return

But this just seems incredibly unrealistic. It's not remotely the norm for small open source libraries.

Omar Cornut, developer of Dear ImGui which is used by pretty much every AAA game studio, said he recently lost his biggest source of income. If he's having trouble getting stable sponsorship, I mean, good luck.

https://twitter.com/ocornut/status/1767233486996254928

Releasing some software open source, having it gain popularity (just from being open source) and then saying you can't make money of it seems disingenuous to me. The project would not have been as popular if it hadn't been open source in the first place. You can't have it both ways.

Making money directly of an open source project is indeed difficult. But that also isn't the promise of open source. The promise is that many groups come together to work on an open source project for mutual benefit.

I had the privilege to work on several open source projects for my employer. Some of these were pretty important to what we are doing, but they were not the direct products we would sell. That worked remarkably well!

I still work on open source, for work, and some in my spare time.

Yes! Make money!

I'm not a maintainer of any significant open source projects, but I'm very sympathetic to the author here. My personal philosophy has always been that I want to try to support, either with my time or my money, the creation of any projects that I find useful or use in my day-to-day life, and that anything I get from open source contributors or maintainers is supererogatory, a surprise, a free gift to be excited and happy about, instead of to take as something I am owed and demand more. I think the entitlement that much of the open source community directs towards our maintainers, where we expect them to fix all of the bugs problems we have, add all of the features we need, and somehow conform to everyone's vision and use case for the product, or else they are evil and selfish and "don't listen to the community," is just fundamentally unfair and unjustified: these people are doing work for free, and as such don't have any sort of obligation to us. No one deserves an ounce of free labor from anyone else, but the opposite of that seems to be the mentality that the FLOSS community has fallen into, and that sense of draining, entitled, almost childish obligation is naturally going to burn out maintainers and contributors at a pace faster than we can probably afford to replace them, because who wants the Sisyphean task of tirelessly and thanklessly appeasing hordes of childish demands? This is not to say that the demands themselves, they're specific technical content, are necessarily childish — of course they probably aren't. This is just to say that the expectant, demanding tone most requests are made in, which betrays the entitlement that motivates them, is itself childish. Neither is this to say that all requests made towards an open source project must be childish, as there is a way to make a request that doesn't seem like a demand, or contacts where demands are fair, like asking them to fix a CVE.

I do also think though that some of the author's problems also probably stem from the fact that they used an open source license instead of a proper free software license like the lgpl or mpl, which means that they weren't able to force individuals and companies to contribute back to the software commons they were all benefiting from, and therefore ended up with a free rider problem. A copy left license would have at least made people contribute some of their time to the library, if nothing else. But it isn't a perfect solution either.

In any case, I think this author's solution to the conundrum here is actually pretty reasonable. I've been pretty sympathetic to the idea of providing all of your source code — enough to compile and build a complete and functioning version of your project — as free and open source software, but asking for money if someone wants the convenience of pre-built binaries or packages, or access to a package repository or continuous integration system or something. It seems extremely fair to me to say to the user, essentially, "yes, you can get all of the source code you need to build a version of my project, so I'm not taking a way any of your basic software freedoms, but I'm not going to do anything more than the absolute bare minimum for you if you don't want to do anything more than the absolute minimum for me". Because while I believe in the idea that information should be free, and that open source is the best development model, and that libre software is important for user rights, I don't think that people are entitled to project authors going out of their way to provide conveniences like pre-built binaries or packages or package repositories.

On the same subject, I think this sort of entitled mentality in FOSS actually compromises the quality and diversity of the open source ecosystem as well: instead of each open source project being free to pursue, on its own terms, its own unique vision for what it wants to do and how it wants to achieve that, and everybody getting to choose which projects to use based on whether their vision happens to align with the vision of the project, instead users seem to just pick a project at random, based on whatever was provided to them by default or whatever they came across first, and then petulantly demand repeatedly that the project conform to whatever they want, making every project an exercise in regression to the mean through the eternal process of satisfying some giant collection of random people, until any unique coherent vision or direction for the project is lost under the weight of democratic cacophony. See GNOME vs KDE, essentially.

>Same goes for companies. Nobody cares about you as long as everything is working smoothly, but as soon as they encounter a problem, guess who comes knocking on my door?

Companies do not use libraries, devs do. Dev ability to pay for the libs is essentially zero, and even if you try to escalate it to management and purchase the license, this can easily take a year of few to approve.

I’m appalled by this, if I’m being honest.

> Working on an open source project is still work, and if you're doing a good job, you should be rewarded for it. I also always believed that if you ever started a project that is valuable for companies, they would support you in return

My friend, then you started in the wrong place. At the risk of getting into a mire over free vs open source software, I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the principles of FOSS, or are picking and choosing parts of it, and ultimately spent a significant amount of time and effort on an inevitable collision course. FOSS tries to be a rising tide that lifts all boats, where by participating in it we all communally benefit from stability, security, lower costs, accessibility, transparency, and so on. Your reward for participating in it is in its continuation and proliferation, where others are doing the same in FOSS software that benefits you by providing non-proprietary solutions. This is real reward[0], apparent to anyone who’s lived through the hell of proprietary software especially before and leading up to FOSS’s golden age. Neither side of a license is entitled to anything beyond what it grants, and expecting more is frankly naive.

Yes, it’s beyond enraging that there are rude, entitled, and lazy end users out there. Welcome to the Internet, just ignore the Issues section like every other repo /s. Yes, it fucking sucks that companies are making trillions off the largely unpaid work by a relatively small group of routinely abused people.

To be absolutely clear, I fully believe you should stop investing time and resources on a project when it’s no longer worth it. I do not believe you owe anyone anything just because you published a project, and you have the contract to prove it. However, I take issue with the “leaving and taking my toys with me”, self immolating previously published software, gating previously open code (I hope you don’t have any contributors you are taking labor from), and throwing your voice behind a dangerous backslide into proprietary hell. If you find yourself fragile enough you’re unable to simply block noisy assholes and move on, then just archive the repo and work on something else.

It’s your project and you can ultimately do what you want, but I’m not gonna applaud you for devolution.

0 - https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/open-source-software-the-nine-tri...

I mean, good. The lesson is, don’t use a FOSS license for your code if you aren’t comfortable with people, maybe everyone, taking you up on it. And don’t share any software (or any creation) with anyone, open-source or proprietary, free or costly, if you don’t want to hear complaints and gripes and insults.

Somebody indeed built a unicorn from similar kind of project.

Summary: author feels bad as their expectations were distant from the reality.

It's usually not very productive to blame reality, but each person has the right for almost anything.

Cue the meme: Well………………bye.

Look, we (aka OSS maintainers) are all struggling to find ways to get paid to make it sustainable—unless we're lucky enough to work at a company that literally just hired us to work on OSS. I totally get some legit gripes about how it's hard to get enough sponsors, or client projects which let you use the projects and then improve them, or whatever.

But just throwing up your hands and saying it's all over seems pretty short-sighted. How many OSS projects has this person used without supporting them? I've probably gotten umpteen amounts of value out of many projects I've never supported…not because I'm a bad person but because that's just how this works.