The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable
Open source maintainers describe a growing mismatch between how heavily companies rely on free software and how little money or support flows back to the people doing the work. Commenters debate whether this is a structural problem that should be addressed through new funding models, licenses, unions or public support, or simply a matter of individual choice where unpaid projects should be treated as hobbies with no expectations. Underneath are recurring themes of maintainer burnout, user entitlement, legal and tax barriers to accepting money, and the tension between keeping code freely available and making a sustainable living from it.
Is OSS actually “unsustainable”?
- Many argue the current ecosystem can continue: individual maintainers burn out, but new ones appear; big projects are heavily funded by companies.
- Others say there’s a mismatch between the huge value OSS creates and the tiny direct compensation to many key maintainers, especially long-tail infrastructure libraries.
Expectations, entitlement, and maintainer boundaries
- Strong theme: users often act entitled—demanding bug fixes, features, and support for free.
- Counterpoint: maintainers have no obligation; they can ignore, say “no,” or walk away. If it’s not fun or paid, stop.
- Some maintainers admit they themselves create the problem by over-engaging, accepting every issue/PR, and feeling responsible to corporate users.
- Suggested coping strategies: close issue trackers, use templates, triage ruthlessly, hand off or share maintainership, treat everything as “best effort.”
Money, business models, and licensing
- Several argue: if you want money, don’t expect it from “donations”; build a product/service, do consulting, support contracts, or dual-licensing.
- Others describe psychological friction: charging might reveal low monetary demand, or feel like “selling out” or unfair to past contributors.
- Debate over licenses:
- Permissive (MIT/BSD/Apache) seen by some as enabling corporate free-riding and devaluing software.
- Copyleft/AGPL framed as more “reciprocal,” potentially enabling dual-licensing.
- “Non-commercial” or pay-to-use-commercially schemes are floated, but noted as non–open source under standard definitions.
Donations, taxation, and platforms
- Practical barriers: in some countries, accepting even small donations triggers heavy self-employment or nonprofit bureaucracy and tax risk.
- GitHub Sponsors and fiscal hosts (like Open Collective) reduce friction but don’t fix tax/legal complexity.
- Crypto is mentioned as a way to receive money, with pushback that it mainly facilitates tax evasion, not structural solutions.
Corporate behavior and procurement
- Companies often use OSS because it avoids procurement red tape, not just because it’s free. Even $1 licenses can trigger paperwork.
- Some report companies happily paying contractors large sums while refusing modest recurring payments or “donations” to projects.
Structural and philosophical proposals
- Ideas include: OSS “royalty” foundations funded by companies, government/NGO funding for “category A” infrastructure, shorter workweeks or UBI to free time for FOSS, and even OSS “unions” or collectives.
- Others say this overcomplicates a voluntary activity: treat OSS like art or hobbies—wonderful if funded, but not something society inherently owes a salary for.