Hacker News Reader

It requires work to create and maintain it, so it's reasonable for the developer to be compensated for that work.

It would be great if all software were free and open-source, but it makes it hard to incentivize people to create that software if they're not being compensated.

Photopea has a paid version, so people who don't want ads can just use that version.

Well because people need money to eat and because lots of effort would go it it

"People need money to eat" is not mutually exclusive with "writing free and open source software."

"lots of effort would go it it" is true regardless of software licensing.

But the effort would not be compensated by this capitalistic world we live in

Because being free and open source will not fund running and development costs?

If it's FOSS, then development costs are 0.

That's not what FOSS means.

This reply has broken my brain. Are there seriously people who think like this?

People spend 0 development hours on FOSS? Because that's the only way dev costs are zero.