We Love Writing Software So Much, We're Willing to Do It for Free

Open source is a gift, and the implicit social contract with gifts is that you don't give them out expecting something in return and you don't complain about them if you are on the receiving end.

If you cannot bare the GitHub issue page or pull requests, either disable them or ignore them. If you cannot bare collaboration in general, host your code as a .zip folder. If you have so much other stuff going on in your life, consider keeping the code to yourself altogether. If you feel frustrated by the fact that you could have made money from your code but didn't because you open sourced it, consider creating commercial projects.

This article is filled with odd takes.

> But, like most people, I’m not persuaded by those who release something into the world for free, and basically guilt trip people for it.

Who guilt trips their users into donating to them?

> To bring food to the table; that’s all you have to do. The key mistake is to confuse the sustainability of your hobby with your own. Free labor is inhumane, yes. But in the case of open source software, it is self-inflicted. > Do it at least to make your job easier. Let the FAANGs pretend they do it selflessly.

Do you perhaps not love writing software as much as the title suggests?

Is it inhumane for a cook to prepare a meal in his free time? Is it inhumane for a mechanic to change a friends oil? What's free labor about open source hobby projects?

> The most common belief open source maintainers have is that offering something for free gives them the right to some of their users’ money.

Utter horse pucky.

If there's a common misconception around corporate open source, it's the belief that it will reduce the maintenance burden by sharing it with volunteer contributors, or (for major projects at least) that releasing open source code will lead them to be in control of a standard, rather than (if they are lucky) having influence over one.

But individual contributors have such differing motivations, I have no idea what the evidence base for that first line is.

And it continues in that vein. So much [citation needed].

I'm not sure that I agree with a single line of this article. It's like the author views their entire world through a lens of financial transactions and can't understand why anyone else sees it differently.

> We Love Writing Software So Much, We're Willing to Do It for Free

The title is right. People love writing software a lot.

In my experience in this field, most don't love or even hate:

1. Fixing bugs, especially obscure ones.

2. Localizing.

3. Updating project dependencies.

4. Updating the project to follow the latest standards (security, internet, domain specific standards).

5. Doing especially the UI part, in a consistent way (consistent colors, spacing, workflows, the works).

6. Writing tests.

7. Setting up builds.

8. Setting up CI/CD pipelines.

9. Planning and roadmaps.

I'd argue that writing software is basically cheap. The expensive part is everything else, which means you're a professional software developer, so basically a "software accountant" that has to dot every i and cross every t, and it's what makes software provide real value.

"Open source as a career enhancement" is a rather depressing take.

I like computers and want to do more with them than just earn money. I want to call my silly code art. I want to have fun. I want to meet cool people.

It's challenging to balance it with basic human needs for shelter and food, sometimes. Maybe the idealist in me believes that it's possible to make art while still putting food on the table?

I’m very confused on how this poorly written and widely speculative article made it to the front page.

I'm currently building an open-source French alternative to Google/Apple Maps, https://cartes.app.

It's the most pleasant project I've worked on so far and I've already got plenty of interesting encouragements and calls. Already worth it.

https://github.com/laem/cartes

Not sure if I agree with the whole article but for most people, open source is fun. That's it. That's the reason

“But, like most people”

When you find yourself thinking this, you are probably wrong.

Just the right time. I’m travelling now to go and deploy a software system I wrote for a NGO, at their place, for free. I am anonymous here so I am not bragging or such: I know many people doing the same, it’s a form of voluntary work, it benefits them, I know how to do it, and I am having fun. Everyone wins.

In my opinion open source software is usually not a ready to use product. More often is a library, a framework or a product prototype that need to be tailored, installed, configured, expanded and maintained by other developers do be useful and produce value. So I see it as just an agreement between developers to share efforts on build base software tools on which grow own private business. It we want to compare it to a traditional business is like a group of farmers that agree to share for free the best of seeds each one produce. So that everyone can grow a better harvest every year. So the business is not in the seeds and seeds producing, but in what you grow from that seeds.

> offering something for free gives them the right to some of their users’ money

This article misses the entire point of the Open Source movement. OS maintainers owe nothing to their users and expect nothing in return. It's that simple. Nobody owes you a bug fix or a new feature that you and your company desperately need. Implement it yourself, then contribute back. That's how it's supposed to work. If you need a feature but don't want to implement it yourself, you should consider compensating a maintainer for their work. A maintainer does not owe you their time and operates on their own release or feature schedule.

> guilt trip people for it

This is a cynical misrepresentation. Most open-source developers know that monetizing their projects is nearly impossible. It’s about passion, not entitlement.

> the goal is for it to be seen by others

Visibility and career advancement can be beneficial, but they are often secondary. Many maintainers continue their work long after securing jobs, driven by their commitment to their projects and communities.

While I agree FOSS doesn't give you the right to users money.

It is especially painful if (big) companies make big money with your free product.

Even after reading the entire article, I still don't understand what the author is trying to convey. In my personal opinion, open-source software is just like what the MIT license implies. By sharing the code I wrote, I give up all rights and also refuse to take on any obligations.

Free software is a heroic endeavor. This poor guy doesn't get it.

> The most common belief open source maintainers have is that offering something for free gives them the right to some of their users’ money.

Opening line. No.

I’m considering finding another line of work so that I can persue my lifelong passion around software without a bunch of godawful sociopaths turning the levers.

I imagine I’d be only middling as a car salesman, but it would hopefully be enough to hack for the joy of it again on nights and weekends.