Hacker News Reader

Comment by stefs | Hacker News Reader

"open source" doesn't automatically mean it's a hobby project done in the free time for no compensation. sure, most projects are developed in this fashion but the concepts are only incidentially correlated.

working on open source software is and can be a "real" job. the only difference to closed source software is that the source code is open - nothing else (simplified).

if you want your hair cut, pay the hairdresser. if you're interested in the continued development of the project, pay the author. it's as simple as that.

in this case there's not enough funding so the project is discontinued. doesn't get more professional and non-hobbyist than that.

View on HN

> working on open source software is and can be a "real" job. the only difference to closed source software is that the source code is open - nothing else (simplified).

That is no small difference. In particular the business is completely different and if you want to make a living out of it, you should plan your job accordingly: find an employer that pays you to write the software, make a business around support for the software, open a twitch/YouTube channel and monetize it, etc., but asking people (or worse corporations) that have the right to use something for free to pay for it doesn't look to me like the best course of action.

> if you want your hair cut, pay the hairdresser. if you're interested in the continued development of the project, pay the author. it's as simple as that.

If you offer to cut the hair for free, you shouldn't complain that rich people don't pay for your services, and the "but everybody comes to me" is not a good enough reason, especially when being free is one of the motivations.

> you shouldn't complain that rich people don't pay for your services

You also should not complain when the hairdresser stops offering free haircuts.

Ah yes, but I am not complaining about that, and I can understand that the author doesn't want to work anymore on the project.

What I am complaining about is the assumption that people using open source software have to contribute to the authors, expecially if they have plenty of money. Open source is not about that. If that is the expectation, a different type of license is probably better suited.

To put it in perspective, "we" on HN are like hairdressers who all chose to charge for our services.

So it's less of a complaint and more of well meaning advise that he too should work for pay.

This would work if the OSI wouldn't vehemently oppose usecase-based restrictions for open source. I think more people should say "it's forbidden to use it for <list things like LLMs, social media, etc.>, if you want to use it, buy a licence from me"

Right now, those corporations just steal the code and sponsor the OSI's gatekeeping.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com