I'm giving up on open source
An open-source maintainer’s decision to stop publishing his project as fully free software, after years of unpaid work and a hostile support request, has reignited debate about the culture and sustainability of open source. Commenters describe how entitlement, abuse, and corporate free-riding burn out individual maintainers, especially on one‑person projects, while also noting that many major OSS efforts remain viable when backed by companies or clear business models. Proposed responses range from stricter moderation and clearer boundaries with users to charging for binaries, support, or “enterprise” features while keeping source code available.
Abuse, Entitlement, and “Thick Skin”
- Many sympathize with maintainers facing harassment, entitlement, and rude issue reports, especially when work is unpaid.
- One camp argues maintainers must develop thick skin, ignore/delete abuse, and not expect the world to change.
- Another insists open source should not require emotional armor; communities should take a hard line on abusive behavior and ban more aggressively.
- Some see much of the hostility as naivety or misplaced consumer habits (“treating GitHub issues like corporate support”), others as deeper arrogance and entitlement.
Expectations vs. Reality of OSS Sustainability
- Multiple comments say expecting companies to voluntarily pay for a small OSS library is unrealistic; “if I build it, they’ll pay me” is seen as a misunderstanding of how procurement works.
- Corporate users are widely portrayed as happy to take value and rarely donate or sponsor, even when projects are critical.
- Several argue: “open source is not a business model”; you need a separate, explicit business strategy (support, hosting, consulting, enterprise features).
- Others counter that large projects (Linux, Postgres, etc.) show OSS can be sustainable when backed by companies or foundations.
Motivations for Open Source
- Some participants view OSS as fundamentally altruistic or a “gift economy” where the reward is collective benefit and better tools.
- Others stress personal benefit: portfolio building, hiring signal, or hobby satisfaction. For them, any payment is a bonus, not an expectation.
- A critical strand claims modern developers are more money‑focused and that free/libre ideals were romanticized “kool‑aid”; others push back, saying these ideals have clearly improved the world.
Project Governance, Boundaries, and User Management
- Frequent suggestion: strong boundaries and process—issue templates, contribution guides, separate user support forums, limiting maintainers’ exposure.
- Some maintainers remove issue trackers, block users, or clearly state “no free support,” citing burnout.
- There is debate over codes of conduct and whether they meaningfully deter bad actors.
The Specific GitHub Incident
- The cited rude issue comment is broadly condemned as entitled and factually wrong.
- Some criticize the blog author for linking directly to it, arguing this triggered a dogpile and serious mental‑health consequences for that commenter.
- Others respond that public rudeness invites public pushback; responsibility for consequences is disputed.