Is there a guide somewhere about how someone’s supposed to create open source software without monetizing it? Or is it just the VC money that makes it not real open source?
I’ve seen this sentiment a lot, especially from OSS veterans like rich harris (who ironically now gets his paycheck from VC money). On one hand I want to complain about it too and say that people should only build open software for the love of building and sharing, but on the other hand it costs a lot of money to exist in meat space and it seems counterproductive and unfair to expect people to build software I find useful (and most likely even profit off of myself) on nights and weekends and get paid in GitHub stars.
While there's lots of different models of open source, what I've seen most often is people setting it up first then selling themselves as gurus and support for major users with money. Often they live low overhead lives - not competitive with SF salaries or startup world. VC money doesn't generally fit this model. While I'm sure there's some, the vast majority of open-source software relied on to run most of the modern world is not VC funded.
(Lago co-founder here)
We shared a few thoughts about « why oss does not win by being cheaper », we are trying o find the balance between oss, quality, sustainability, indeed.
I’ve seen this sentiment a lot, especially from OSS veterans like rich harris (who ironically now gets his paycheck from VC money). On one hand I want to complain about it too and say that people should only build open software for the love of building and sharing, but on the other hand it costs a lot of money to exist in meat space and it seems counterproductive and unfair to expect people to build software I find useful (and most likely even profit off of myself) on nights and weekends and get paid in GitHub stars.