Write some software, give it away for free
Many engineers are pushing back against the expectation that every side project must become a monetized SaaS, arguing that writing and releasing software purely for joy, curiosity, or to “give back” often produces better, less user-hostile tools. Others counter that most people still need to pay rent, that free work can be exploited by corporations and entitled users, and that FOSS has both enabled great infrastructure and eroded many ways individual developers could get paid. The exchange explores trade‑offs between passion and livelihood, models like donations or ethical pricing, and how AI, VC culture, and platform controls are reshaping what it means to build software for free.
Nostalgia, culture, and motivations
- Many reminisce about 80s/90s BBS/demoscene and early Unix days: small, cross‑pollinating communities, low monetization pressure, and “just make cool stuff” ethos.
- Others counter that this is rose‑tinted: life was slower, documentation harder to get, and they would not actually go back.
- Several stress treating coding as self‑exploration and craft, not purely a financial vehicle, often reporting more joy and better software as a result.
Free vs paid software and incentives
- Broad agreement that “never charge” and “always monetize” are both wrong; debate centers on where to draw the line.
- Some see subscriptions and VC‑driven “startup in an afternoon” culture as pushing dark patterns, lock‑in, and “enshittification.”
- Others emphasize needing income for rent, food, and retirement; wanting to get wealthy from one’s work is defended by some and seen as creating perverse incentives by others.
- Comparisons with bakers/plumbers lead to arguments that software is different because it’s infinitely copyable and non‑rivalrous, which breaks traditional pricing logic.
- Suggested models: AGPL + paid binaries, open core with paid hosting, “farmers‑market” style craft software, foundations and grants, patronage/donations, non‑commercial or “fair source” licenses that restrict hyper‑scale cloud reselling.
Open source maintenance and user entitlement
- Multiple maintainers describe being burned by rude users demanding free support, features, and license changes, leading to emotional exhaustion.
- Counter‑voices ask why this can’t simply be ignored; maintainers respond that triage, communication, and boundary‑setting all have real time/mental costs.
- Tactics mentioned: auto‑replying with the license, closing issues, encouraging forks over PRs, turning off issues/PRs, and clearly stating “no contributions” policies.
- Some report that paying customers tend to be more reasonable; others say entitlement exists on both sides, just harder to ignore when money is involved.
AI, cloning, and OSS
- Some hope AI agents will churn out free alternatives to predatory subscription apps, killing off “cash‑grab” mobile software.
- Others fear AI will weaponize OSS norms: cloning paid apps, re‑releasing them “for the community,” undermining sustainability while still leaving hosting and compute costs.
- There is skepticism about AI‑written OSS quality and trustworthiness.
Nonograph and similar “free” projects
- The featured service is praised for spirit (no tracking, Tor support, audits) and for embodying “build something cool, give it away.”
- Skeptics worry about abuse, legal liability for user‑generated content, and whether claims of rapid takedown are realistic at scale.
- Several commenters share their own free tools and apps, often explicitly framed as “giving back” once a day job or prior success covers their needs.