There are other people contributing lots to GnuPG and alternatives. GnuPG development receives thousands of euro in donations every month. Werner also seems to run a commercial company around GnuPG, hope it is doing well. Doesn't seem as tragic as "The World's Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who is Going Broke", did i miss something?
FOSS authors shouldn't tie their destiny to a project they like to work on. It quickly gets ugly, one example being Eric Raymond, who took the stance that he will work on whatever he feels like, "because it has to be me who is doing it", dismissing loads of people saying "get a job and stop punishing yourself and your family". But still his supporters back him to some extent via Patreon.
You can follow your passion, but who's to blame if you don't maintain the balance?
If you have a kid to raise, but you'd rather hack on free software all the time instead, are you eligible for free childminders and nursery just because?
Can you be doing whatever you feel like, have no obligations to anyone, and expect to have a decent living?
Ok, I can understand your argument, which if I restate it is this; "There are free software projects that are explicitly set up to support the developers, so the burden is on the developer to set up such a system, not on the users to find a way to support the developers." Would you agree with that restatement? Did I understand you correctly?
Where I am is in an interesting subsection of the entire solution space of "free software". Consider your statement:
> Can you be doing whatever you feel like, have no obligations to anyone, and expect to have a decent living?
On the surface, the answer to that question is no. Because of the expectations aspect. But phrase it a bit differently and we get to where I am;
"Can you be doing whatever you feel like, and one or more companies are making millions in revenue based on products made possible by what you are working on, and expect to have a decent living?"
I completely don't understand what you said about burden on developers to set up some system.
> "Can you be doing whatever you feel like, and one or more companies are making millions in revenue based on products made possible by what you are working on, and expect to have a decent living?"
Still no.
There are few good reasons to contribute to open source, and they are nothing about profits other users make, because the process and the product are rewarding to the contributor.
Now there are some bad reasons to contribute to open source, where the motivation is perverse, the situation looks distastrous, and only these cases would take advantage from any such policing, subsidizing, taxing, wealth redistribution.
Does that person do the work to use the product themselves? Then such external factors don't matter, the person extracts the value they intended to have.
Does that person do the work to meet interesting challenges, mess with smart people, and have fun? Obviously it's nothing about getting money from other users.
Does that person do the work to promote themselves in careers? Other users matter only as big or numerous names, not as revenue.
Does that person do the work with the only outcome being the profit for companies which the person expects to pay back, while putting on work under the license which does not require users to pay at all?
Or, in addition to that, they bring a FOSS product to the market, profit from providing value-add services to that, but get broke because someone else starts to provide similar value-add services with their product, all being legal?
Your thoughts are completely about these people, and these people have really perverse motives from the outset.
If I read you correctly, you feel strictly that when someone contributes to open source their reward is that the product/feature works for them. There is no other consideration expected or needed. Is that correct?
Where we might differ is that I have observed that people contributing to open source feel a sense of pride or "ownership" over the work they have contributed.
Further, when someone who has not been part of the community, or contributed to it in any meaningful way, uses that work to make themselves and perhaps people that work for them wealthy, I have observed that the people who feel ownership feel a certain level of "unfairness" if you will.
In a strict libertarian point of view there was never any sort of economic contract to share any wealth created by a thing with the people who created and maintained that thing. As such the people who created it are without recourse and should be happy with the satisfaction they got from creating and maintaining it in the first place. And that was "their choice" that they made.
If that is what you're saying, I don't find the feelings these people have to be "perverse" (which by definition would make them abnormal). I am not arguing that the people start out with a motivation to "make money on their work", I was discussing the situation that the original author notes which is that sometimes a little gizmo you make is useful to a lot of people, and so it gets very widely utilized. The number of users creates a tremendous maintenance burden which is unfunded. That maintenance is, in my opinion, a value-add service which isn't being compensated (or is being compensated at a below poverty level according to our author).
FOSS authors shouldn't tie their destiny to a project they like to work on. It quickly gets ugly, one example being Eric Raymond, who took the stance that he will work on whatever he feels like, "because it has to be me who is doing it", dismissing loads of people saying "get a job and stop punishing yourself and your family". But still his supporters back him to some extent via Patreon.
You can follow your passion, but who's to blame if you don't maintain the balance? If you have a kid to raise, but you'd rather hack on free software all the time instead, are you eligible for free childminders and nursery just because?
Can you be doing whatever you feel like, have no obligations to anyone, and expect to have a decent living?