Having met with many open source contributors and maintainers, the one pattern I see from those who do it consistently is that they are usually pretty wealthy or gainfully employed. It's almost like a status symbol to be able to have many open source projects that you can afford to work on for free. And a lot of open source projects are really just part of commercialized software that has been extracted and made available to the public for free, so there has already been some revenue from it.
It is pointless to feel outraged about open source projects being "below the poverty line". Virtually no one is actually being forced into poverty by working on open source projects, and if they are, they're doing it wrong. Open source ventures are primarily a rich man's (or woman's) game.
Sounds like survivorship bias. The people who are able to start and keep working on open source projects have other income sources, because the current donation model affords them below-poverty wages.
I would like open source to be a viable model for projects run without maintainers needing to be independently wealthy or full time employed elsewhere. This article is pouting out that we’re a long ways off.
There is definitely survivor bias, you're completely right.
At the same time, I know for a fact that if I had my name at the top of the list of a well known open source project, I could tack an extra 50k/year to how much I ask for my next job.
The same holds true for conference speakers. People will say how much work it is and how you're usually not paid for it... But last time I talked at a conference my inbox exploded with people wanting to give me the moon and then some.
Millage varies and there are many other factors at play for sure, but there is a lot to gain by doing this stuff. There's a reason that so many people try to be the next Webpack, the next big test runner, the next big site generator, etc.
> I would like open source to be a viable model for projects run without maintainers needing to be independently wealthy or full time employed elsewhere. This article is pouting out that we’re a long ways off.
Why? There's no guarantee that's going to result in better software anyway. Sounds like a desire to just be able to work on absolutely whatever you want and get paid (very well) for it.
>I would like open source to be a viable model for projects run without maintainers needing to be independently wealthy or full time employed elsewhere. This article is pouting out that we’re a long ways off.
You can somewhat get there by purchasing the source code to closed-source products and then open-sourcing it.
Also, some open source projects are of the category "gosh darn it, this just wants to exist, regardless of whether large numbers of people are willing to use it and popularize it".
The developer is gainfully employed with another source of income, but believes in that project.
I see you have not met substack, Dominic Tarr, myself, Titus, and others. Here is substack's lifetime earnings: https://twitter.com/substack/status/829802572508639232 This Twitter thread is also quite on topic with your comment.
I don't see your point. If you want money go make money, it's not unattainable and it's fairly easy to get if you have skills. If any of those developers really wanted to prioritize money I'm sure they'd have no problem making plenty of it.
If you want to make free open source software then do that.
If you want both then build a business model around your open source software.
It is pointless to feel outraged about open source projects being "below the poverty line". Virtually no one is actually being forced into poverty by working on open source projects, and if they are, they're doing it wrong. Open source ventures are primarily a rich man's (or woman's) game.