Generating Income from Open Source

I don't understand this argument at all.

> There is nothing wrong with developing software and selling it. It used to be the norm and it is still quite common.

Yes, agreed.

> These days "open source" is virtue signaling and expected "to be cool".

Yes, agreed.

> That people then grump about not being paid shows that they are not particularly interested in the concept of open source.

Well, yes, they got pulled in by the hype and then realized that they needed some kinds of cashflows to make it sustainable.

> I do nitpick on people who see open source as a way to get paid and they are angry if they dont get it.

Why? Because they made one mistake up front and picked the wrong model and didn't realize until they were several years into their project that open source was wrong for them? So you decide to crucify them for that, even though if they'd made that decision right from the start you would have 100% fully supported them?

I didn't realize that open sourcing something was a perpetual indefinite infinite-year long contract that requires endless toil and slavery to the cause. Perhaps we should be a bit more clear about that up front.

> "Source available" is not open source and has nothing to do with open source. Open source never confused people until bad-faith actors started intentionally trying to confuse them by labeling things that aren't open source as "open source".

I do not know how one can say such a thing with a straight face. The confusion does not require bad faith actors, but just the ability to speak English. LITERACY is what causes the confusion. It is right there in the words: _open_ source.

> Open: adjective

> 1: having no enclosing or confining barrier : accessible on all or nearly all sides

> 2a(1): being in a position or adjustment to permit passage : not shut or locked

> 3a: completely free from concealment : exposed to general view or knowledge

> Synonyms: clear, free, unobstructed, ==> _AVAILABLE_ Why is there confusion? Because the source is right there, in clear view, unobstructed, and not hidden behind any doors. Yes, OSI's definition also fits the definition. It is also a reasonable interpretation of those combined words. But to say that confusing "available source" and "open source" is only caused because of bad faith actors is ludicrous when they mean the same thing. Talk about calling the kettle black.

> Guess what, most people can't make money from their hobbies... You have no entitlement to be successful in your attempts to do so.

Guess what, most people can't make money from their businesses. You're not entitled to have a successful business. So what? This is irrelevant. We're talking about the definition of a word that we can look up in the dictionary.

> The only place I've ever seen anyone pretend that "open source" can legitimately mean something other than the OSI's definition is on this forum.

Being terminally online is not an excuse for not being able to open a dictionary. It isn't an excuse for understanding that the rest of the world does not think identically to you. Go touch some grass and talk with people offline. I guarantee you that they will confuse these words. Even if we assumed "bad faith actors" caused this, well if Taco John's can lose "Taco Tuesday" and if Bayer can lose "aspirin" then OSI can lose "Open Source," and I honestly don't care. Words mean what people use them to mean. Having access to the source is a valid and extremely reasonable interpretation of the words "Open source".

I am not calling OSI a bad faith actor, but I am calling you one. Being unwilling to recognize that it is possible to confuse these meanings simply through plain literacy isn't only inane, but delusional. The reason people like me get so upset/frustrated about this is because it is like trying to prove to someone that the sky exists. We can see it, it is right there. Being obstinate isn't doing you any good. Saying I'm tricking you or there's a witch hunt isn't helping you either. Even if there was a grand conspiracy, as you have suggested, it would still be reasonable to call it the sky. The conspiracy wouldn't fucking work if it wasn't. So even that premise doesn't make a lick of sense.

Open a dictionary and talk to some people.

[0] (in fairness, you have to click the thesaurus for available, but it is under "as in public" which is exactly what we're talking about) whhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open

> What is plain hypocrisy to me are the people who developed "for profit" open source projects, and are angry when they dont get paid enough, when the projects they have created rely on GNU tools, the Linux kernel (Perhaps Debian), a libre software database on so on.

This is a big part of why I find it so crazy that people argue that "Open Source" work isn't open when a commercial license is attached (besides the fact that "available" and "open" are synonyms and it is a clearly reasonable interpretation of the words). It strikes a balance between that "coolness" you mention while not letting big companies take your work and make massive profits while stepping on your shoulders.

I think it is completely reasonable for Open Source (aka Software Available) projects to say "Here's my work. If there's pie to be had, just be cool and share a little. If there isn't, don't fret, we're in this together." It is astounding to me that people attack those asking for a little pie when they so clearly are lifting up the pie eaters. It would be one thing if they were asking for the whole pie, but (like this article) that doesn't seem to be the vast majority of them. And if we're being honest, attacking the scaffolding seems just like it ends up in less pies overall.

It’s not very clear to me what the exact funding model is, but I don’t think if Jetpack went away it would make a seismic financial dent in WordPress.org.

A lot of that sponsored core development comes straight from Automattic, which gets revenue from WordPress.com, WooCommerce paid services, Tumblr advertising, and Jetpack too.

I got tired of being that guy at some point within the past few years and started personally contributing.

I’m not taking any sides here, but GitHub’s sponsor feature makes this _very_ easy to do, and that’s valuable to me.

Edit to add: Agility in contributing money to FOSS projects is not where it could be, and that’s absolutely a place we could do better in to drive more direct funds into the FOSS ecosystem.