The End of Eleventy

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...

Maybe it's just that my site is extremely dumb? I forked an "ultra minimal" theme and deleted most of its code. So perhaps I just use such a tiny subset of the template system that I haven't been affected.

I respectfully, but very strongly disagree. There is nothing good that comes from corrupting someone's passion project by attaching strings to it.

> Kickstarter, Patreon, Etsy, even GitHub Sponsors are steps in a positive direction

I would take a huge step back from that statement and have a harder think, but that's just me.

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.

I have nothing against anyone who wants to do both. I'm just saying some variant of what I'm thinking has to be why it's not as popular as you want or expect.

Something else worth considering is that people can actually be much better at (and better off) doing things they're not so passionate about.

This isn't just about devs being precious about their feelings or capacity to work. It's about control. Corrupting the direction of the project was my original point and where most of my disagreement comes from.

I would not expect most workers in any field to be so naive. The amount of convincing and money it usually takes to get someone to give up control is necessarily greater than what it was originally worth to that person. More often than not, creative people are also sophisticated enough to see that they may not fully appreciate the meaning of their project longer term right now, and the default answer has to be "no" possibly forever.

Someone asking a creative person to give even an inch of control is the one in need, not the other way around. They have to be on the creative person's level to get anywhere. Even just simple collaboration or discussion can be difficult if they don't feel it's fair. This is a very tall order and at that point they might as well stop begging and manipulating and just do it themselves.

That's what makes open source so great. Go ahead and fork it, but you're not getting the passion or skill or vision as part of the deal.

At some point you have to take a step back and wonder what you thought you were buying by giving the creator any money. This is where it falls apart.

Again, this isn't even stubbornness or selfishness. Negotiation is a skill that only gets tougher the more value is at stake. Most devs can make enough money just fine doing something else and still maintain full control. This is almost exactly why the jobs that pay the best are some of the most meaningless. Nobody is fighting for control over that stuff.

They already have it all just by being themselves. They are the stewards of true value keeping the world from becoming a hellhole foolishly and singularly concerned with money. In other words, if they didn't know something you don't, you wouldn't be offering them money (and only money). :-)